LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 763Decided 28 Jul 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3611 of 2015
B.R. Gavai · Hima Kohli

Background

Steel Authority of India (SAIL), a government-owned company, was issued a show-cause notice in 2005 demanding excise duty of about Rs. 15.66 crore. As a public sector undertaking, SAIL needed clearance from the now-abolished Committee on Disputes (CoD) before litigating against another government body, and the CoD in 2006 allowed it to contest only the penalty, not the duty itself, terming the duty dispute "revenue neutral." SAIL paid the duty under protest, and only in 2011 did it apply afresh to the CoD for permission to contest the duty demand, but before that application could be decided, the Supreme Court (in Electronics Corporation of India v. Union of India) abolished the CoD clearance mechanism altogether. As a result, the question of whether SAIL owed interest on the duty was never actually examined by any authority, and both CESTAT and the Calcutta High Court had dismissed SAIL's attempts to reopen the matter.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found the facts "peculiar" because SAIL's second application to the CoD, seeking permission to contest the duty/interest issue, became stranded in a procedural gap: filed shortly before the CoD mechanism itself was scrapped, meaning it was never considered on merits. Since no authority had ever actually decided whether SAIL was liable to pay interest on the duty amount, the Court held that this specific limited question deserved consideration. It allowed the appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court's order, and remitted the matter back to CESTAT solely to decide the question of interest on the duty, with no order as to costs.

Lesson Learnt

Procedural gatekeeping mechanisms (like the now-abolished CoD clearance requirement for public sector litigation) can leave genuine substantive questions (here, liability for interest) never actually adjudicated; courts will step in to ensure such questions get a proper hearing rather than being lost to procedural timing.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Tax & Customs Law

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld treatment of this subsidy as a taxable revenue receipt. It applied the purpose test: the scheme had to be read as a whole to determine whether the assistance supported capital investment or the running of an established business. Here, payment tracked actual electricity charges incurred in production and was not earmarked for plant, machinery, factory construction or repayment of capital borrowing. The scheme's broad aim of industrial development did not override those operative features, and payment after production began was relevant to the overall scheme rather than decisive by itself.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Kuku Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order was material, since the core premise of the petition (indefinite non-finalisation) no longer held true once formal orders existed. It held the petitioner now had an effective alternate remedy, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, to raise all its arguments, including about delay, and declined to keep the writ petition pending just because a related Supreme Court case on delay in adjudication was ongoing. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form, with liberty to appeal.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/s Aparna Collection vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court rejected the argument that limitation under Section 74(2) must be measured from the date on Form GST DRC-01, because DRC-01 is only a summary of the show cause notice. On Section 74(10), the Court held that the statute requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the prescribed period, and that DRC-07 is a summary uploaded later under Rule 142. Because the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, and the questions raised needed factual findings, the Court declined to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all contentions there, including limitation and exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Another

The Supreme Court dismissed the authorities' appeals and upheld the classification accepted by the High Court. It held that, under the statutory entries at issue, classification depended on the goods' form when sold, rather than what customers might later prepare with them. The beverage entry grouped beverages with syrups, cordials, juices and other liquid preparations, and did not expressly include powders used to make drinks. Packaging instructions and general tests of popular meaning or function could not expand that clear statutory description. Because the products did not fit the specific beverage entry, they belonged in the residual category; precedents involving differently worded entries or liquid products did not change that result.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) & Anr.

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Except for the assessment year, the facts were identical to the earlier case, and the Court held that judicial discipline required it to follow the Coordinate Bench's decision in the petitioner's own case. The Court did not accept the petitioner's reliance on an interim order in another company's case, and noted that the earlier judgment in the petitioner's own case was final. The earlier judgment also left it to the Assessing Officer to examine, after the notice is answered, whether the Rs 82 lakh amount is a spurious transaction.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Ms Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi South & Ors.

The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the Commissioner could validly invoke Section 54(11), because an anti-evasion investigation was already underway when the impugned order was passed and the Commissioner had formed an opinion of fraud or malfeasance based on contemporaneous material. The Court held that the power to withhold refund is distinct from the adjudication and appellate scheme under Sections 73, 74 and 107, and that the absence of a statutory appeal does not bar judicial review. However, an appeal had already been filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), so the Court declined to decide disputed factual questions and left all issues open before the GSTAT.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case