Central Excise Act, 1944

Supreme Court Clarifies Valuation of Goods for Excise Duty in Related Party Transactions: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax vs. Merino Panel Product Ltd. (2022) INSC 558 (05 December 2022)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 37B, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4(1), Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 with Rule 11, Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 with Rule 9, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Valuation of Goods for Excise Duty in Related Party Transactions Introduction Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 558 Judges: Surya Kant, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J. Can the transaction value of goods sold to independent buyers be used to determine the excise duty on goods sold to related […]

Supreme Court Clarifies Valuation of Goods for Excise Duty in Related Party Transactions: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax vs. Merino Panel Product Ltd. (2022) INSC 558 (05 December 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles limitation for rebate claims under Central Excise Act: Sansera Engineering vs. Deputy Commissioner (29 November 2022)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11B, Central Excise Rules, 2002 with Rule 18, Judges, M.M. Sundresh, M.R. Shah, Rebate of Duty

Supreme Court settles limitation for rebate claims under Central Excise Act: Sansera Engineering vs. Deputy Commissioner (29 November 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Sansera

Supreme Court settles limitation for rebate claims under Central Excise Act: Sansera Engineering vs. Deputy Commissioner (29 November 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Excise Duty Refund on Returned Goods: M/s Peacock Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 173-L, Judges, Krishna Murari, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Excise Duty Refund on Returned Goods: M/s Peacock Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of market value for excise duty refund on returned goods. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Case Name: M/s Peacock Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. Judgment Date: September 5, 2022 Date

Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Excise Duty Refund on Returned Goods: M/s Peacock Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for Export-Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz Private Limited vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Cenvat Credit, Deemed Exports, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 6.11, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.3, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for Export-Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Krishna Murari, J. Can Export Oriented Units (EOUs) directly claim refunds for Terminal Excise Duty (TED) on goods procured from Domestic Tariff

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for Export-Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz Private Limited vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty refunds for Export Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 82 (4 January 2022)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Deemed Exports, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 6.11, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.3(c), Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refunds for EOUs and DTA Suppliers LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Export Oriented Units (EOUs) and Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) suppliers are entitled to refunds of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) on goods supplied to EOUs, and which authority should process these claims. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, Foreign Trade Policy Case Name:

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty refunds for Export Oriented Units and Domestic Tariff Area Suppliers: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 82 (4 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refund under Foreign Trade Policy: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 3, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Deemed Exports, Dinesh Maheshwari, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.3, Foreign Trade Policy with Para 8.5, Judges, Krishna Murari

Supreme Court Clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refund under Foreign Trade Policy Date of the Judgment: January 4, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Krishna Murari, J. Can a supplier of goods to an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) claim a refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) under the Foreign Trade

Supreme Court clarifies Terminal Excise Duty Refund under Foreign Trade Policy: Sandoz vs. Union of India (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020)

/ Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, Judges, M. R. Shah, Promissory Estoppel

Supreme Court Upholds Retrospective Application of Excise Duty Notifications Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 295 Judges: Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, JJ. (authored by M.R. Shah, J.) Can the government retroactively change tax benefits promised to industries? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in

Supreme Court settles the applicability of retrospective tax laws and promissory estoppel in excise duty exemptions: Union of India vs. M/s V.V.F Limited (22 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Disallowance of MODVAT Credit as Deduction: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 1944 with Rule 2(3), Deductions, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 43B, Judges, MODVAT Credit, Navin Sinha

Supreme Court Upholds Disallowance of MODVAT Credit as Deduction: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether unutilized MODVAT credit can be claimed as a deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Case Name: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Judgment

Supreme Court Upholds Disallowance of MODVAT Credit as Deduction: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Refers Rule 5 Validity Challenge Back to Division Bench: M/S Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 1234 (05 December 2019)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 3A, Central Excise Rules, 1997, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, R.F. Nariman, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court Refers Rule 5 Validity Challenge Back to Division Bench Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 1234 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., V. Ramasubramanian, J. When a case is referred to a larger bench, is it always necessary for the larger bench to answer the questions referred? The

Supreme Court Refers Rule 5 Validity Challenge Back to Division Bench: M/S Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 1234 (05 December 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies appeal process in Central Excise cases: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (2019)

/ Adjudication Process, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Judges, Show Cause Notice, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies appeal process in Central Excise cases: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an internal order of the Central Excise Department, determining that it has jurisdiction to proceed with a matter, is appealable before the issuance of a show cause notice. CASE TYPE: Central Excise

Supreme Court clarifies appeal process in Central Excise cases: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Excise Duty Exemption on Tobacco Products: Union of India vs. Unicorn Industries (2019)

/ Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 with Section 3(3), Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 with Section 3(3), Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 5A, Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Excise Duty Exemption on Tobacco Products: Union of India vs. Unicorn Industries (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Union of India can withdraw an excise duty exemption on certain products, invoking public interest, despite having granted the exemption earlier. CASE TYPE: Excise Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Upholds Withdrawal of Excise Duty Exemption on Tobacco Products: Union of India vs. Unicorn Industries (2019) 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 »

Scroll to Top