In case of M/s Star Industries v Commissioner of Customs (Import), Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting Notification No.4/2006-CE held that it is an exemption notification where only ‘Ores’ were exempted and if after the process of manufacture
In the present case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the place of delivery could not be termed as place of removal for the relevant time mentioned in the show cause notices with respect to section 4 of Excise Act and Rule 5 of Excise Valuation Rules.
The Supreme Court Bar Association favoured NJAC for appointment and transfer of judges. It advocated that it can probe cases of misconduct by judges, including those from the highest judiciary.
Supreme Court of India while interpreting Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which is for rebate of excise duty, has held in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise that Rebate of Duty is Admissible Both on Inputs i.e raw materials and Final Goods.
Supreme Court held In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy V. The Dist. Inspector of Police and ANR that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge there for, would fail.
Supreme Court held In the case of SRI S.N. Wadiyar (Dead) through LR V. Commissioner of Wealth Tax that a property which is going to be taken over by the Government at a compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs and is awaiting notification under Section 10 of the Act for this purpose
CCE Vs. Hitkari Fibres Ltd. (Supreme Court), Price-escalation which was not contemplated at or before time of removal, cannot form part of transaction value especially when there is no allegation of understatement of value – Duty is payable at place, price and time of clearance of goods
In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. Dated 13.06.1998 for NIL SAD is not granted in respect of such goods which the importer sells post importation from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale of goods.
In the case of CIT vs. Suman Dhamija, the Supreme Court held that CBDT Instruction specifying monetary limits for filing appeals applicable only to appeals filed after that date and not to pending appeals.
In the case of M/S. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs , it was held by Supreme Court that anti-dumping duty could not be added for computing customs duty, Special Customs Duty and Special Additional Duty by referring to the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs
