Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Supreme Court settles classification of Coconut Oil: Edible Oil or Hair Oil? (18 December 2024)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section III, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section VI, Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) with Chapter 15, Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) with Chapter 33

Supreme Court Classifies Coconut Oil: Edible or Hair Oil? (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether packaged coconut oil should be classified as edible oil or hair oil for excise duty purposes. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. M/s. Madhan Agro Industries (India) Private Ltd. [Judgment Date]: 18 December 2024 Introduction Date […]

Supreme Court settles classification of Coconut Oil: Edible Oil or Hair Oil? (18 December 2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “manufacture” under Central Excise Act: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. (2024)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 2(f), Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 18, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Note 3 to Chapter 18, Cenvat Credit, Excise Law, Manufacture, Rebate

Supreme Court Clarifies “Manufacture” Definition in Excise Law: Jindal Drugs Case (2024) Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 354 Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Can the simple act of affixing labels on product packaging be considered “manufacturing” under excise law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “manufacture” under Central Excise Act: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd. (2024) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles classification of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda for Excise Duty: Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad vs. M/S Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 (20 October 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4A, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Classification of Goods, Excise Duty

Supreme Court Clarifies Excise Duty on Chewing Tobacco and Zarda: Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 951 Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J. Can a product labeled as “flavored chewing tobacco” be classified differently for excise duty purposes if it contains similar

Supreme Court settles classification of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda for Excise Duty: Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad vs. M/S Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 (20 October 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 21, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 24, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with Section 14, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with Section 15, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether state legislatures have the power to levy sales tax on pan masala and gutkha, given the central government’s authority to levy additional excise duties, and whether the state tax rate can exceed limits

Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 24, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with Section 14, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with Section 15, Dipankar Datta, Interpretation of CET Act, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Taxability of pan masala and gutkha under state sales tax laws, considering the central excise and additional duties. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: M/S Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd. vs. Govt. of N.C.T of

Supreme Court Upholds State Tax on Gutkha and Pan Masala: Trimurthi Fragrances vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Homeopathic Hair Oil as Medicament: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11-A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11-AA, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 30, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 33, Dinesh Maheshwari, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Schedule K, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Homeopathic Hair Oil as Medicament: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a homeopathic hair oil should be classified as a medicament or a cosmetic for tax purposes. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs. Ashwani

Supreme Court Upholds Classification of Homeopathic Hair Oil as Medicament: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds ‘Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil’ as Medicament Under Chapter 30: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023) INSC 4832 (03 May 2023)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 30, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 33, Dinesh Maheshwari, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with Schedule K, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds ‘Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil’ as Medicament Under Chapter 30 Date of the Judgment: 03 May 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 4832 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Vikram Nath, J. Can a product containing homeopathic medicines, applied topically, be classified as a cosmetic or a medicament? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court Upholds ‘Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil’ as Medicament Under Chapter 30: Commissioner of Customs vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy (2023) INSC 4832 (03 May 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and CCE vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs and Excise. Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. & CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29 March

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of All-in-One Desktop Computers under Central Excise Tariff Act: Hewlett Packard India vs. Commissioner of Customs (2023)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section 4, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section 4A, Classification of Goods, Customs and Excise Law, Judges, Portability, Surya Kant, Tariff Item 8471, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of All-in-One Desktop Computers under Central Excise Tariff Act LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines (ADPs) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. CASE TYPE: Customs and Excise Law Case Name: Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Judgment Date: 17 January 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of All-in-One Desktop Computers under Central Excise Tariff Act: Hewlett Packard India vs. Commissioner of Customs (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers: Thermax Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2022)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 84.18, Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), Heat Pumps, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Hrishikesh Roy, HSN Definition, Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), Judges, K.M. Joseph, Refrigerating Equipment, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Supreme Court Classifies Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers: Thermax Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2022) Date of the Judgment: October 13, 2022 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a product marketed as a heat pump, but primarily used for cooling, be classified as a heat pump for excise

Supreme Court Classifies Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers: Thermax Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Modvat Credit on ‘Guide Car’ as Component of Coke Oven Battery: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (2022) INSC 739 (16 September 2022)

/ Central Excise Rules, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 1944 with Rule 57Q, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 84, Classification of Goods, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Denies Modvat Credit on ‘Guide Car’ as Component of Coke Oven Battery Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 739 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J. Can a specialized vehicle used in a steel plant be considered a ‘component’ of a larger industrial unit, thus qualifying for tax

Supreme Court Denies Modvat Credit on ‘Guide Car’ as Component of Coke Oven Battery: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (2022) INSC 739 (16 September 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top