Excise Law

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 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 Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Rebate and Escalation in Construction Contract Dispute: NTPC Ltd. vs. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Arbitration Act, 1940, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 30, Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 33, Arbitration Law, Contract Law, Escalation Charges, Fixed Price Clause, Judges, N.V. Ramana, Rebate, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Rebate and Escalation in Construction Contract Dispute: NTPC Ltd. vs. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2021 Citation: (2021) INSC 127 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Surya Kant, J., and Aniruddha Bose, J. Can an arbitrator’s decision on contract interpretation be challenged in court if

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s Award on Rebate and Escalation in Construction Contract Dispute: NTPC Ltd. vs. Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Liquor License Allotment, Dismisses Challenge Based on Locus Standi: Suresh Chandra vs. Joga Singh Bisht (26 October 2020)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Constitutional Law, Contract Law, Excise Law, Excise Law with Section 34, Excise Law with Section 36, Government Contracts, Hemant Gupta, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Licensing, Locus Standi

Supreme Court Upholds Liquor License Allotment, Dismisses Challenge Based on Locus Standi: Suresh Chandra vs. Joga Singh Bisht (2020) Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 777 Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Can a High Court interfere with a government contract based on a claim of potential

Supreme Court Upholds Liquor License Allotment, Dismisses Challenge Based on Locus Standi: Suresh Chandra vs. Joga Singh Bisht (26 October 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top