SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1705

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Quippo Energy Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Excise Ahmedabad – II – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

INDEX

A.

FACTUAL MATRIX

B.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

(i)

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

(ii)

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

C.

ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

D.

ANALYSIS

(i)

What amounts to “manufacture” under the Act, 1944?

(ii)

Whether the activity undertaken by the Appellant amounts to “manufacture”?

E.

CONCLUSION

1. These appeals under Section 35L(b) of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944 (for short, the “Act, 1944”) are at the instance of an assessee and are directed against the Final Order dated 15.10.2015 (for short, the “Impugned Order”) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench (for short, the “CESTAT”) at Ahmedabad in Appeal bearing Nos. E/640/2009-DB, E/1284,1285/2009-DB & E/557/2012-DB respectively, by which all the three appeals filed by the assessee came to be partly allowed by setting aside: (i) the demand of duty with interest for the extended period of limitation and (ii) the imposition of fine, penalty and confiscation of goods

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top