Thermax Private Limited v. The Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House

4 SCC 440Reported decision1992#24829 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Judgments citing Thermax Private Limited v. The Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House

Srimanthi Kanthimathi Kumaraswami Mudaliar Kalyanamandapam Trust, Chittoor vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

ITA 690/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Section 12A

…have accepted that the application in 10AB as per the `DOCTRINE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND `INTENDED USE', as held in: Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors - 11 SCC 447 (SC)-19. 3. 07 Thermax Private Ltd. v. CC (Bombay) New Custom House (1992) 4 SCC 440 & Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. J.K. Synthetics (2000) 10 SCC 393 6. The CIT(E) failed to appreciate that LITERAL INTERPRETATION must yield to legislative intent, as held in a plethora of cases - PCIT vs Aarham softronics 412 ITR 623 (SC). 7. The CIT(E) ought to have acted upon the application in 10AB filed as per the Doctrine of Purposi…

M/S. I.O.C.L vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara

C.A. No.-004530-004532 - 2005Supreme Court13 Jan 2012

Section 35L

…X of the Rules was also to be complied with for availing concession under the exemption notification was raised before this Court in Thermax Private Limited v. The Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House [1992 (61) ELT 352 (SC)] = [(1990) 4 SCC 440] and a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the possession of a license or production of a C-2 certificate as provided in Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Rules enables the applicant to secure the necessary concession and that the entitlement to the concession will depend on whether the purchaser is the holder of a L-6 license (or C-2…

M/S. Lohia Sheet Products vs. Commnr. of Customs, N.Delhi

C.A. No.-002411-002411 - 2002Supreme Court05 Mar 2008

For Respondent: Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi

Section 130Section 3

…on the import of a manufactured or produced article the actual manufacture or production of a like article in India is not necessary. As observed by this Court in Thermax Private Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1992(61) E.L.T. 352 (S.C.) = [1992] 4 SCC 440] at page 452-453 that Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act "specifically mandates that the CVD will be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. In other words, we have to forget that the goods are imported, imagine that the importer had manufactured the goods in India and d…