SC Ruled that Clarificatory Amendments Operate Retrospectively

Case Details: Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II (2026) 42 Centax 456 (S.C.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Facts of the Case

The appellant was engaged in cutting, grooving, and routing Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs) in accordance with customer specifications. The Department alleged that the said activity amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought to levy excise duty thereon. The Tribunal held in favour of the assessee. However, the Revenue challenged the order before the Karnataka High Court, which reversed the Tribunal’s decision. The assessee thereafter approached the Supreme Court. The issues before the Court included whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and whether the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that disputes relating to the excisability of goods have a direct nexus with the rate of duty and therefore fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. It further held that the amendment to Section 35L(2) was clarificatory in nature and would operate retrospectively. On the merits, the Court observed that mere cutting, grooving, and routing of Aluminium Composite Panels (ACPs) did not result in the emergence of a new commercially distinct product, and the Revenue had failed to establish the marketability of the processed goods. Accordingly, the activity did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Commissioner v. Pushpadeep Enterprises — 2011 (273) E.L.T. 377 (Kar.) — Reversed [Paras 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 77, 99]

List of Cases Cited

• • Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2003 (157) E.L.T. 393 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 70]
  • Bater v. Bater — [1951] P. 35 — Noted [Para 91]
  • Bharat Forge & Press Industries (P) Ltd. v. Collector — 1990 (45) E.L.T. 525 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 68]
  • Bheraghat Mineral Indus. v. Divisional Dy. Commr. of Sales Tax — 1992 (61) E.L.T. 560 (M.P.) — Noted [Para 71]
  • Cipla Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2008 (225) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 90]
  • Collector v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises — 1989 (43) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 88]
  • Collector v. United Phosphorus Ltd. — 2000 (117) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 88]
  • Commissioner of Income-tax v. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. — (1997) 5 SCC 482 — Relied on [Para 48]
  • Commissioner v. DLF Golf Resorts Ltd. — 2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 202 (P & H) — Noted [Para 52]
  • Commissioner v. Ernst and Young Pvt. Ltd. — 2014 (34) S.T.R. 3 (Del.) — Noted [Para 31]
  • Commissioner v. Motorola India Ltd. — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 33]
  • Commissioner v. Reliance Media Works Ltd. — 2020 (372) E.L.T. 220 (Bom.) — Noted [Paras 32, 51]
  • Commissioner v. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. — 2005 (186) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 69]
  • Gujarat Narmada Valley Ferti. Co. Ltd. v. Collector — 2005 (184) E.L.T. 128 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 89]
  • Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2005 (181) E.L.T. 170 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 89]
  • M. Rajendran v. KPK Oil and Protiens India (P) Ltd. — (2026) 3 SCC 505 — Relied on [Para 49]
  • Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1995 (76) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 82]
  • Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee — (1979) 3 SCC 83 — Relied on [Para 35]
  • Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector — 1993 (68) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 15, 33]
  • Pushpdeep Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1025 (Tribunal) — Referred [Paras 1, 10]
  • Quippo Energy Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 34 Centax 364 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 16, 62, 75]
  • Servo-Med Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (319) E.L.T. 578 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 15, 16, 61, 62, 63]
  • Union Carbide India Ltd. v. Union of India — 1986 (24) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 87]
  • Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. — 1977 (1) E.L.T. 199 (S.C.) [Paras 63, 75]
  • Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. — 1998 (97) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 15, 61]
  • Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem Pvt. Ltd. — 2002 (145) E.L.T. 274 (S.C.) — Relied on [Para 83]
  • University of Kerala v. Merlin J.N. — (2022) 9 SCC 389 — Relied on [Para 50]