Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Transaction Value’ under Central Excise Act: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (20 January 2025)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11AC, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Judges, Pankaj Mithal

Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Transaction Value’ under Central Excise Act: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2025) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ‘transaction value’ for excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when goods are sold at different prices to different buyers. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Bharat […]

Supreme Court clarifies ‘Transaction Value’ under Central Excise Act: Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (20 January 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on Tobacco Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Miraj Products (2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4A, Rule 2(g), Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, Rule 2(x), Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, Standards of Weight & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on Tobacco Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Miraj Products (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the goods sold by the respondent-assessee are covered by Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Central

Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act on Tobacco Products: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Miraj Products (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (22 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Corporate Law, Dipankar Datta, Joint Venture, Judges, Related Person, S. Ravindra Bhat, Subsidiary Company, Valuation of Excisable Goods

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the price at which a company sells its products to a buyer should be treated as a transaction with a “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Central

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (22 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (22 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Valuation of Excisable Goods

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Central Excise. Case Name: M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR. Judgment Date: 22 March 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (22 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Differential Excise Duty: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (2019)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11AB, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Central Excise Rules, 2002, Central Excise Rules, 2002 with Rule 7, Central Excise Rules, 2002 with Rule 8, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Differential Excise Duty: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether interest is payable on differential excise duty with retrospective effect under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, when prices are revised due to an escalation clause. CASE TYPE: Central Excise

Supreme Court Upholds Interest on Differential Excise Duty: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles if Dharmada is part of Transaction Value in Central Excise Cases (9 April 2019)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Deepak Gupta, Judges, S.A. Bobde, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 2(h), Sale of Goods Act, 1930 with Section 4, Transaction Value, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies: Dharmada is Not Part of Transaction Value in Excise Duty Cases (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Dharmada, a voluntary charitable donation, is part of the transaction value for excise duty calculation. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Case Name: M/s D.J. Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Judgment Date: 9 April 2019 Introduction Date

Supreme Court settles if Dharmada is part of Transaction Value in Central Excise Cases (9 April 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies valuation for excise duty: Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Excise Duty Valuation, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi, S. Abdul Nazeer, Transaction Value

Supreme Court Clarifies Valuation for Excise Duty: Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the determination of value for excise duty purposes, specifically the inclusion of various charges in “transaction value.” CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies valuation for excise duty: Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows Cenvat Credit on Outward Transportation: Commissioner of Customs vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd. (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with Rule 2(l), Judges

Supreme Court Allows Cenvat Credit on Outward Transportation: Commissioner of Customs vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd. (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the definition of ‘input service’ includes service tax paid on outward transportation of goods from the factory to the customer’s premises. CASE TYPE: Central Excise and Service Tax Case Name: Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and

Supreme Court allows Cenvat Credit on Outward Transportation: Commissioner of Customs vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Cenvat Credit on Goods Transport Agency Services: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with Rule 2(l), Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Cenvat Credit on Goods Transport: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) Date of the Judgment: February 1, 2018 Citation: [2018] INSC 72 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a manufacturer claim Cenvat credit on service tax paid for transporting goods from their factory to the

Supreme Court clarifies Cenvat Credit on Goods Transport Agency Services: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) Read Post »

Scroll to Top