Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed; any question of law was kept open.

Issues: (i) Whether excise duty was payable on pharmaceutical samples removed for in-house and outside laboratory testing where prescribed records were not maintained; (ii) Whether the Revenue's appeal before the High Court was maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether excise duty was payable on pharmaceutical samples removed for in-house and outside laboratory testing where prescribed records were not maintained.

Analysis: The undisputed removal of samples for testing, coupled with failure to maintain accounts of their value, movement, utilisation or destruction, attracted the prescribed procedure for removal of samples. In the absence of such records, the samples were liable to be treated as goods removed for home consumption. The claim that the goods had not attained marketability before in-house testing could not prevail after the assessee's failure to maintain the mandatory records. Authorities concerning samples for which proper records were maintained were distinguishable.

Conclusion: Excise duty was payable on the unaccounted testing samples. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's appeal before the High Court was maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The departmental appeal fell within the scope of Section 35G and was not excluded from its operation.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal before the High Court was maintainable. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The determination sustaining duty on unaccounted samples and the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the departmental appeal remain operative.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee removes excisable samples for testing but fails to maintain prescribed accounts substantiating their removal, utilisation or destruction, the samples may be treated as removed for home consumption and subjected to excise duty.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the subsequent order in original, and no interference was made with the impugned High Court order.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The special leave petitions were dismissed and the pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Outcome: The appeals and special leave petitions were dismissed, including on the ground of low tax effect, and the connected challenge regarding applicability of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 did not survive for interference.

Outcome: Special Leave Petition dismissed. No interference was called for in the impugned judgment.

Outcome: Delay condoned. No interference was called for with the impugned judgments/orders. The special leave petitions were dismissed, and pending applications stood disposed of.

Outcome: Special Leave Petition dismissed. The order notes that the limitation finding recorded by the Tribunal, including that the show cause notice was beyond the normal period and that the extended period was unavailable for want of suppression, had not been questioned before the High Court and no reason was found to entertain the petition.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to succeed in the appeal in view of the original notification dated 30.04.2001 and the clarificatory notification dated 28.06.2001, and whether the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below and affirmed by the High Court called for interference.

Analysis: The Court took note of the original notification and the subsequent clarificatory notification and accepted the concurrent findings returned by the Commissioner, the Tribunal, the CESTAT and the High Court on the facts arising from those notifications. On that basis, the Court found no merit in the challenge.

Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the findings in favour of the revenue were left undisturbed.

Issues: Whether credit on items such as welding electrodes, jointing sheets and other items used for maintenance, repair, upkeep or fabrication of plant and machinery is admissible as being "used in or in relation to manufacture".

Analysis: The Court examined the scope of the expression "used in or in relation to manufacture" and applied settled legal principles holding that the phrase has wide import and includes items used in the process of manufacture whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not. The Court considered prior authority which held that items used for maintenance, repair, upkeep or fabrication of plant and machinery are encompassed within items "used in" manufacture and therefore qualify for credit.

Conclusion: Credit on welding electrodes and similar items used for maintenance, repair, upkeep or fabrication of plant and machinery is admissible; the appeals are allowed in terms of the cited judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "used in or in relation to manufacture" is to be interpreted broadly to include all items used in the process of manufacture (directly or indirectly), including items used for maintenance, repair, upkeep or fabrication of plant and machinery, and such items qualify for input credit.

Outcome: Delay condoned. No interference was called for with the impugned order, and the appeals were dismissed.

Outcome: Delay condonation was refused and the appeal was dismissed as barred by time.

Issues: (i) Whether the relationship between the parties is that of principal-to-principal or that of job-worker to principal; (ii) Whether the delayed appeals (208 days) filed by the appellant can be entertained.

Issue (i): Whether the relationship between the parties is that of principal-to-principal or that of job-worker to principal.

Analysis: The Tribunal found on the facts that the parties were in a principal-to-principal relationship rather than a job-worker arrangement. That finding of fact was examined and no perversity was found in the Tribunal's conclusion on the record.

Conclusion: The finding that the relationship is principal-to-principal is upheld; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals filed with a delay of 208 days can be entertained.

Analysis: The appeals were considered on both delay and merits. Having examined the record, the Court declined to condone the delay and entertained the appeals only to the extent of examining merits which did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay and on merits; conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed both on account of delay and on merits, sustaining the Tribunal's factual finding regarding the nature of the parties' relationship.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with a Tribunal's finding of fact which is free from perversity; where such a factual finding sustains the Tribunal's conclusion on the nature of the contractual relationship, the appeal must be dismissed.