Supreme Court held In the case of Modern Hotels v CCE that the amount paid for the renewal of licence under Foreign Liquor Rules under the Amnesty scheme will be treated as an adjustment toward interest.
Supreme Court has held in the case of CCE v M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. of India held that the surrendering of advance licence in order to receive the products at lower rate will be considered as “additional consideration” under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Supreme Court held In the case of CCE v. Hindustan Unilever that Vaseline intensive Care Heel Guard is a medicament as it is produced under the Drug Licence and also before classifying any particular product the dominant function have to be considered.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goodyear South Asia Tyres held that in order to brand two persons as relatives on the basis of mutuality of interest it is necessary to show that such interest is from both sides in the business of one another.
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. M/s. Global Health Care Products , the Supreme Court held that ‘Close up’ should be classified as dental cleaner, not toothpaste on account of different
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Swastika Enterprise held that the endorsement on the bill of entry to pay additional customs duty is a demand and not mere a provisional assessment. Thus, the duty payable due to such endorsement can be settled as settlement of demand under indirect taxes demand settlement scheme.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabina Abraham & others held that the estate of a dead person cannot be attached for recovery of excise duty payable because there is no enabling provision in the Act to do so.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.S. Rathnam& Sons held that when two methods are permissible under the statutory scheme itself to discharge duty liability then merely because with the adoption of one particular method the duty that becomes payable is lesser
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft P. Ltd. held that where the law provided a manner of doing certain thing then the same to be done in that manner only. The execution deviating the prescribed manner is of no cure.
In the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Kehems Engg Pvt Ltd Vs. CST, Delhi/ CCE & ST, Indore/ CCE/ Rajkot and CCE & ST, Indore Vs. Kehems Engineering Pvt Ltd. [2015-TIOL-527-CESTAT-DEL-LB], the Five Member Bench of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi
