Assessee is entitled to credit on the eligible inputs utilized in the generation of electricity to the extent to which they are using the produced electricity within their factory (for captive consumption). They are not entitled to CENVAT credit to the extent of the excess electricity cleared at the contractual rates in favour of joint ventures, vendors etc., which is sold at a price.

whether the assessee(s) was required to reverse the CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 on the quantity of LSHS which was used as “fuel” for producing steam and electricity, which, in turn, was used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods, namely, fertilizers
the credit will not be permissible on such quantity of fuel which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods

It goes without saying   that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist.
Dilip N. Shroff has been held to be not laying down good law in Dharamendra Textiles. Dharamendra Textiles is explained by this Court in Rajasthan Spining and Weaving Mills. Having   thoughtfully considered the matter, in our judgment, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the High Court in the light of the decisions of this Court in Dharamendra Textiles and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills

Duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purposes of Sections 80I/80-IA/80-IB of the 1961 Act

unless the foundation of the case is made out in the showcause notice, Revenue cannot in Court argue a case not made out in its show-cause notice
Since the goods admittedly fall under Chapter 57 and consist of more than two or more textile materials, it has to be classified on the basis of that textile material which predominates by weight over any other single textile material. As in the goods in question jute admittedly predominates by weight over each other single textile material, the said Carpet could only be classified as jute carpets and nothing else.

non-woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene are classifiable under heading 5703.20 as “jute carpet” to justify concessional rate of duty
where there is a concurrent finding of fact by the authorities below in support of respondents claim for classification normally this Court does not interfere with such concurrent findings

Full Bench: challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them under Section 9 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. It was alleged that the appellants evaded central excise duty and the trial court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months- the appellants are above 70 years' in age and the entire duty allegedly evaded by the present appellants has already been paid by them. Under the above circumstances and in view of the special reasons, we confirm the conviction but modify the sentence and direct that the appellants 2 and 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs each in lieu of six months imprisonment

Whether the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80IA of the Act on the amount of entire eligible income without reducing the amount of export incentive from the same

Whether sub-Section (2B) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, inserted on 12th May, 2000 by the Finance Act of 2000 is retrospective? And
Whether Section 120 of the Finance Act, 2000 which was a validating Act was invalid inasmuch as it purports to validate a provision which had never existed on the statute book?

Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that unutilized MODVAT credit of earlier years adjusted in the assessment year in question should be treated as actual payment of excise duty under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that customs duty paid and allowed as a deduction under Section 43B cannot be added to the value of the closing stock
the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for depreciation on account of enhanced cost of depreciation due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate was admissible for deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

This batch of civil appeals filed by the assessee involves common issue of classification of branded word game "Scrabble" - whether the product "Scrabble" is classifiable under sub-heading 9503.00 or sub-heading 9504.90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985
"Scrabble" will not fall in the category or class mentioned in sub-heading 9503.00, namely, "puzzles of all kinds".
"Scrabble" is a board game. It is not a puzzle. In the circumstances, it falls under Heading 95.04 and not under sub-heading 9503.00 of the CETA.

Snake and Ladder, Monopoly, Scrabble/Upwords are classifiable under Heading 95.04 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act

Larger Bench: whether it was open to the Commissioner of Income Tax to rectify its own order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the judgement of this Court [later judgement] in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.

Whether "interest" which the assessee earned on bonds and debentures was chargeable to tax in view of the definition of the term "interest" in Section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974

whether omission [deletion] of the second proviso to section 43-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated with effect from 1st April 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988?
Finance Act, 2003, to the extent indicated above, is curative in nature, hence, it is retrospective and it would operate with effect from 1st April, 1988 [when the first proviso came to be inserted]

The Tribunal is right in allowing the deduction of Rs.55,84,754/- being the payment made by the assessee company directly to Life Insurance Corporation towards Group Gratuity Fund under Section 36 (1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Larger Bench: conversion of marble blocks by sawing into slabs and tiles and polishing amounts to "manufacture or production of article or thing” so as to make the respondent(s)-assessee(s) entitled to the benefit of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The test for determining whether “manufacture” can be said to have taken place is whether the commodity, which is subjected to a process can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but is recognised in trade as a new and distinct commodity. The word "production”, when used in juxtaposition with the word "manufacture”, takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. The word "production” takes in all the byproducts, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods.

the sales tax dues shall have precedence over the mortgage created in favour of the Bank