Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 29/03/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Customs & Excise

Customs & Excise

Customs Act, 1962 – Section – 15(1), 46(5) – Exemption from duty – Appeal relates to the applicability of the Notifications No. 439/86 and No. 440/86, dated October 6, 1986 whereby partial exemption admissible in respect of basic customs duty and auxiliary customs duty on wood and articles of wood falling under Notifications was withdrawn

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

  (1997) 94 ELT 454 : (1997) 11 SCC 654 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KHATTAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA — Respondent ( Before :…

Customs & Excise

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article – 14 – Claim for exemption – Respondent company is entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification – In order to be treated as a manufacturer the respondent must not hold any share in the capital of any foreign company and no part of the capital of the respondent company must be held by a foreigner or a foreign company.

Jun 23, 2017 sclaw

  (1999) 107 ELT 579 : (1997) 11 SCC 657 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUHRID GEIGY LTD. — Respondent ( Before…

Customs & Excise

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the plastic piece parts continued to remain under Entry 15A(2) until the enactment of the Bill on 19th April, 1982, whereupon they became classifiable under Entry 68 – The Act does not take account of Exemption Notifications for they apply only when goods are exigible to duty but, thereby, the payment of duty or a part thereof is exempted – Appeal dismissed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (1997) 57 ECC 245 : (1996) 87 ELT 577 : (1997) 10 JT 368 : (1996) 7 SCALE 719 : (1997) 2 SCC 220 : (1996) 7 SCR 664…

Customs & Excise

Relief was granted to the petitioners on the basis of the judgment reported as State of U.P. v. Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. – There is no advertence to Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co.’s case – That case, as said before stands pro tanto overruled.It could not have been the basis to grant relief to the respondents by the High Court – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (1999) 8 SCC 137 : (2000) 117 STC 420 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL), SALES TAX AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KHERIA BROTHERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

You missed

Land Acquisition National Highways Authority Act

National Highways Act, 1956 — Amendments and compensation provisions — Section 3-J introduced in 1997 removed applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) provisions for solatium and interest — Overturned by various High Courts, including reading down Sections 3-G and 3-J to grant solatium and interest — Subsequently, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and its amended provisions extended to NH Act — Court clarified that landowners acquired lands under NH Act between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to solatium and interest — Review Petition filed by NHAI arguing financial burden was underestimated rejected, but clarification on delayed claims issued.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 102 — Applicability — Provision contemplates a situation where a judgment debtor transfers property after institution of suit to a person who then obstructs execution — Not applicable where respondents derived title from independent registered sale deeds, not from the judgment debtor.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw
Land Acquisition

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 28-A — Re-determination of compensation — Second application for re-determination based on High Court award maintainable even after accepting compensation based on Reference Court award — Principle of merger means appellate court’s award supersedes earlier award, entitling landowners to benefit from higher compensation — Object of Section 28-A is to ensure equality in compensation among similarly placed landowners.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw
Electricity Act

Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 61, 86 — Tariff determination and Generation Based Incentive (GBI) — State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has exclusive power to determine tariff — Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) introduced GBI to incentivise renewable energy generation — GBI is intended to be over and above the tariff fixed by SERC — SERC must consider GBI while determining tariff, but not necessarily deduct it — SERC’s power to determine tariff includes considering incentives — Parliament’s allocation of funds for GBI does not prevent SERC from considering it in tariff — SERC must exercise its power harmoniously with other stakeholders to achieve policy objectives.

Mar 29, 2026 sclaw