ONLY SUPREME COURT *

  Exemption from SAD is not available for domestic sale of imported commodities which are exempted from sales tax - Commr of Customs vs Seiko Brushware India - 2015 TIOL 203 SC CUS.

 Central government has no power to make rules for levy of Anti dumping retrospectively for period between expiry of provisional Anti dumping duty and imposition of final Anti dumping duty - Commr. of Customs vs GM Exports & Ors - 2015 TIOL 209 SC CUS.

 Printing of logo and name of product of manufacturer in GI paper purchased from market amounts to manufacture as after such process end use is confined only to specific product of the particular manufacturer – CCE vs Fitrite Packers - 2015 TIOL 235 SC CX.

 Buyer of assets of Corporation pursuant to the winding up order cannot be saddled with past excise duty liability of such corporation in absence of sale of business as a going concern - Jaiprakash Associates Ltd Vs. UOI - 2015 TIOL 2013 HC ALL CX.

 Assesee using brand name of foreign company through deed of assignment is using the same on its own right and hence cannot be held as using brand name of another person so as to be denied benefit of SSI exemption notification - CCE Vs. Otto Bilz India Pvt Ltd - 2015 TIOL 217 SC CX.

 Royalty paid by seller to buyer for using brand name of buyer does not constitute additional consideration and is not includible in assessable value - Lakhanpal Ltd Vs. CCE - 2015 TIOL 224 SC CX.

 Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not bar assessee from utilizing accumulated credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 - CCE Vs. New Swadeshi Sugar Mills - 2015 323 ELT 222 (S.C.)

 Amended provisions of Section 11B is not applicable to cases where though order of refund has been passed , implementation is pending as on date of amendment - CCE Vs. Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd - 2015 TIOL 204 SC CX.

 Explanation-II which is appended to Rule 2(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 would make a ‘related person’ as a sole distributor only if it falls within the criteria of this sub-rule. Therefore, mere sole distributorship is not the conclusive consideration. It has also to be demonstrated that the case falls in one of the clauses mentioned in Rule 2(2) out of the clauses stipulated therein - Commissioner of Cus.(Imports), Mumbai Vs Bayer Corp. Science Ltd - 2015 (324) E.L.T. 17 (S.C).

 If a particular product is substantially for the care of skin and simply because it contains subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents or is having subsidiary curative or prophylactic value, it would not become medicament and would still qualify as the product for the care of the skin - Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 209 (S.C)

 Exporters/appellants are entitled to both the rebates on inputs and final products under Rule 18 and not one kind of rebate - M/s Spentex Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors - 2015 TIOL 239 SC CX.