w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II V/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000GOI107739

Company & Directors' Information:- MUMBAI SANCHAR LIMITED [Dormant under section 455] CIN = U32202MH1996PLC099702

Company & Directors' Information:- NIGAM & NIGAM PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U35921WB1987PTC042595

    Final Order No. A/85173/2018-WZB in Appeal No. E/1166/2008-Ex(DB)

    Decided On, 29 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAMESH NAIR
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAJU
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: M.R. Melvin, Superintendent (AR) And For Respondents: M.H. Patil, Advocate



Judgment Text


1. The fact of the case is that the respondent M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. are holding Central Excise Registration for manufacture of excisable goods falling under Tariff Item No. 8517 30 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods were cleared to their units/branches located all over India for consumption/use to provide services to their customers, they adopted the valuation i.e. only the cost of production. The case of the department is that as there were no sale it appeared that the value of excisable goods manufactured by the respondent should have been determined as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 11 and Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 i.e. by cost construction method. Accordingly the respondent were required to determine the assessable value of the excisable goods at 110% of the cost of production of the said goods. Accordingly they have undervalued the goods, consequently there is a short payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 1,32,86,489/-. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings relying on the CESTAT judgment in the respondent's own case reported as B.S.N.L. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Haldia - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 127 (Tri.-Kolkata) relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCC Pole Factory v. Collector of Central Excise : 2003 (158) E.L.T. 429 (S.C.), held that for valuation purpose, under Rule 11 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, addition of 15% was not justified as the impugned goods were not captively consumed for further manufacture or production. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the judgment of this Tribunal in the aforesaid BSNL case has been accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice dated 24-4-2008 has been dropped therefore the Revenue is before us. Shri M.R. Melvin, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the Ld. Commissioner has dropped the proceedings only on the basis of Tribunal's judgment in the appellant's own case reported at 2007 (215) E.L.T. 127 (Tri.-Kolkata). This decision of the Tribunal is only based upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of PCC Pole Factory (supra) which is on issue of valuation with reference to Rule 6(b) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, whereas the period involved in the present case is covered by the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, wherein Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules clearly prescribed the valuation at the rate of 110% of the cost of production. The provisions of Rule 6(b) was different from the Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, which is applicable in the present case. Therefore the Tribunal judgment based on PCC Pole Factory (supra) judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable as the same has not considered Rule 8 independently.

2. Shri M.H. Patil, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the respondent's own case has already settled by this Tribunal in the case of B.S.N.L. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Haldia - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 127 (Tri.-Kolkata). This judgment of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. Therefore now the department cannot take contrary stand. He placed reliance on this Tribunal judgment in the case of XEN, Central Workshop, PSEB v. Commr. of C. Ex., Jalandhar : 2014 (308) E.L.T. 133 (Tri.-Del.). He further submits that in a case where the department in the respondent's own case accepted the Tribunal decision of Kolkata Bench thereafter the Revenue cannot take a different stand. In this regard he relied on the following judgments:

(i) Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise : 2005 (186) E.L.T. 266 (S.C.),

(ii) Daily Thanthi v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai : 2005 (186) E.L.T. 268 (S.C.),

(iii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Hyderabad v. Novapan Industries Ltd. : 2007 (209) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.),

(iv) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-V v. Swastik Rayon Processors - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.),

(v) Jayaswal Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur : 2006 (195) E.L.T. 142 (S.C.),

(vi) Boving Fouress Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai : 2006 (202) E.L.T. 389 (S.C.),

(vii) Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. : 2006 (202) E.L.T. 392 (Ker.),

(viii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bigen Industries Ltd. - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.),

(ix) Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. Titawi Sugar Complex : 2003 (152) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.).

3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regard the issue raised by the Ld. Counsel that once the Revenue accepted the BSNL's Tribunal decision it is not allowed for them to raise the question on the same issue. We find that the issue involved is a valuation of excisable goods which is neat question of law, question of law can be raised at any stage when the matter is before the Tribunal. The Tribunal can very well decide the matter independently irrespective whether the earlier judgment on the same issue has been accepted by the department. Therefore we do not agree at this stage, the issue cannot be re-decided on its merit. Now we take up the matter to decide on merit. We find that in the present case for the purpose of valuation, Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 is applicable. As per the fact of the present case, the goods were not sold by the appellant but provided to the customer for use. The question arises in such nature of transaction, what valuation should be arrived at. Obviously Section 4(1)(a) shall not apply therefore the recourse to be made to Section 4(1)(b) and Rules made thereunder. If we see the Rules sequentially we find that any of the Rule from Rules 1 to 10 are not directly applicable to the nature of transaction in question, therefore the recourse has to be made from Rule 11 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 which reads as under:

"Rule 11. If the value of any excisable goods cannot be determined under the foregoing rules, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act".
On plain reading of the above Rule 11, it can be seen that even though the Rules 1 to 10 do not apply but the valuation can be made by adopting the suitable Rule in the Rules 1 to 10. In case of removal other than the sale of the goods the appropriate Rule is Rule 8 which can be applied, Rule 8 reads as under:

"Rule 8. Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be one hundred and ten per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods."
As per reading of the above Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, it is seen that even though the goods are not used by the respondent or on their behalf but by virtue of Rule 11 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, the most appropriate Rule is Rule 8. Therefore in accordance with Rule 8 of Valuation should be 110% of the 'cost of production'. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter solely on the basis of Tribunal's order in the respondent's case reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 127 (Tri.-Kolkata). The relevant order portion is reproduced below:

"Heard both sides. Shri N.C. Roychaudhary, Ld. Sr. advocate appearing for M/s. BSNL states that w.e.f. 1-10-2000, the Department of Telephones was corporatised to form the present appellant company M/s. BSNL. Prior to that date, the goods manufactured by the Department of Telephones was exempt from Excise duty. In between, there was confusion regarding excisability of the goods manufactured by M/s. BSNL. However, the duty is being paid w.e.f. 1-10-2000 and there is no contest regarding the dutiability of the products thereafter.

2. Shri Roychaudhary, however, contests that portion of the order which determines the value of the impugned goods by adding 15% under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. He argues that the impugned goods are not consumed in the manufacture or production of any other items, but are merely supplied for use as such without any further manufacture by M/s. BSNL themselves. He also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCC Pole Factory v. Collector of Central Excise reported in : 2003 (158) E.L.T. 429 (S.C.) in which, in a similar case where PCC Poles were used by the Electricity Boards for laying electrical lines, it was ordered to value such poles without adding 10% to the cost.

3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records and the cited decision, we are of the view that the present case of the appellants is similar to the one decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence applying the ratio of the said case, we hold that for valuation purposes under Rule 11 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, addition of 15% is not justified as the impugned goods are not captively consumed for further manufacture/production. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the extent appealed against and remand the matter to the original authority for requantifying the duty amount. The appellants shall be eligible for consequential refund, if any.

4. As regards the penalty, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the period relates to immediately after corporatization of the Department of Telephones to M/s. BSNL and the prevailing uncertainty in the matter of levy and demand of duty during the interim period and since there is also no suppression of facts, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. The appeal is allowed in the above terms."

From the above order, it can be seen that it is based only on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of PCC Pole Factory v. Collector of Central Excise : 2003 (158) E.L.T. 429 (S.C.) and no independent finding on the valuation provision was given. The judgment in the case of PCC Pole Factory (supra) is reproduced below:

"The appellant is a manufacturer of PCC Poles which are used by the Electricity Board for the purposes of laying electric lines and transmission of electric energy. The Department being of the view that there is no captive consumption in terms of Valuation Rules held that 10 per cent profit will have to be added in finding out the value of these poles and not the actual value disclosed by them. The appellant having lost before the authorities, carried the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the orders made by the authorities and took the view that "PCC poles are marketable and where the work is done by job work, there may be some margin of profit in such activity" forgetting the fact that in the present case Electricity Board itself was carrying on that job and has not assigned the job to any other person who can gain such profit and no business was carried on by the Electricity Board after manufacturing the poles and selling them out or dealing out with any other person. On the other hand, the poles were used for drawing electric lines over them for purpose of transmission of electricity.

2. In this view of the matter, we think the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The order made by the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the enhancement to the extent of 10 per cent is deleted.

3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Each party shall bear its own costs."

The above judgment was passed on the issue of Valuation under Rule 6(b) of erstwhile Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 which reads as under:

"Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be based-

(i) On the value of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee:

..............................................................................

..............................................................................

(ii) If the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), on the cost of production or manufacture including profit, if any which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods;", suffix

From the above Rule, it can be seen that i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t provides for addition of profit but the word suffix is if any that means the profit can be added as per Rule 6(b) only when the assessee is making profit. As per Rule 8 the valuation should be done on 110% of the cost of production irrespective of whether the assessee is making profit or not, therefore there is departure from Rule 6(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1975 and introduction of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2000. In terms of Section 4(1)(b) and Valuation Rules, 2000 there is no provision where only cost of product can be taken as value of the goods when supply is other than sale, the cost of production alone cannot be taken as value of excisable goods. Therefore the only option of valuation is left with Rule 8 and in accordance with Rule 11 the appropriate Rule 8 should be applied. Since both the Tribunal judgment in the case of appellant as well as XEN, Central Workshop, PSEB (supra) are based on PCC Pole Factory (supra) the matter needs to be referred to the Larger Bench to resolve the following question: "Whether during the period after 1st July, 2000 the valuation of the goods supplied which does not involve as sale should be done under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2000 or on the basis of cost of production without adding any notional profit." Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon'ble President of this Tribunal for constituting the Larger Bench.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

23-06-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Through The General Manager & Another Versus Narendra Kumar Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-05-2020 CLP India Private Limited Versus Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
01-05-2020 Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Versus Space Tech Equipments & Structurals Private Limited High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-02-2020 Nagar Nigam & Another Versus District Consumer Forum I, Lucknow & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
26-02-2020 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd Versus M/s P.M. Electronics Ltd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-02-2020 Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited & Another Versus State of Orissa & Others High Court of Orissa
20-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi & Another Versus Shyamal Kanti Deb Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
18-02-2020 Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Another Versus Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla Supreme Court of India
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
14-02-2020 M/s. Fine Automotive & Industrial Radiators Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director Versus Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Represented by its Principal General Manager, Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 BVSR-KVR (Joint Ventures) Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Narakal, Represented by Its Divisional Engineer (Internal) Parur, P. Amanulla Versus The Secretary, Narakal Grama Panchayat & Another High Court of Kerala
10-02-2020 Mili Nigam Versus Kalanidhi Naithani, S S P Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-01-2020 M/s. Sheetla Granite Daharra Kabrai Versus Dakshinanchal Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-01-2020 Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Versus GSCO Infrastructure (P) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
21-01-2020 Chanabasappa Versus Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 Neelam Nigam Versus State of U.P. Thru Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
09-01-2020 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Through The Assistant Engineer, District-Sri Ganga Nagar Rajasthan Versus Ravi Kant National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 Hindustan Zinc Limited (H.Z.L.) Versus Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Supreme Court of India
27-11-2019 M/s. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited Versus Northern Coal Field Limited Supreme Court of India
07-11-2019 Malay Majumder, West Tripura Versus The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chairman & Managing Director, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
17-10-2019 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Canara Bank & Others Supreme Court of India
01-10-2019 Arjunsinh Rameshbhai Solanki Versus The Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
13-09-2019 Babu Radhakrishnan Versus The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2019 Dr. K.T. Mate, Manipur & Others Versus The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Nagaland & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-09-2019 S. Sreenivasababu Versus Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-09-2019 Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Another Versus Raj Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-09-2019 M/s. Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. Supreme Court of India
27-08-2019 Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Evam Nirman Nigam Versus Tripti Thapliyal & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
19-08-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others Versus Pramod V. Sawant & Another Supreme Court of India
19-08-2019 Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Oswal Papers Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2019 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
08-08-2019 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus Canara Bank & Others Supreme Court of India
01-08-2019 Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Versus Gurdev Singh High Court of Rajasthan
22-07-2019 Shanti Kumar Jain Versus U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow Thru Managing Director & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
18-07-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the Chief General Manger, Telecom (Tamilnadu Circle), Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Sakthi Engineering Constructions, Erode & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-07-2019 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchkula & Another Versus Contimeters Electrical Private Limited, Delhi & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-07-2019 Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Through The Assistant Engineer, Khetdi Nagar, District-Jhunjhnu Versus Ram Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-07-2019 IL & FS Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. Versus Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others High Court of Jharkhand
25-06-2019 The Principal General Manager, Tele Communications Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Coimbatore Versus GETIT Infomediary Ltd., (Formerly M & N Publications Ltd.,) Represented by its Deputy General Manager, R. Srikanth & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2019 The Principal General Manager (Telecom), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Tiruchirapalli & Another Versus India com limited formerly known as Sesa Seat Information Systems Ltd, Pune & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2019 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
27-05-2019 Parsa Kente Collieries Limited Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Supreme Court of India
23-05-2019 Icomm Tele Ltd. Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2019 Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-05-2019 Shalabh Nigam Versus Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-05-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., represented by its Chief General Manager, Office of the Chief General Manager of BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Sivanandan, Shyamrangam, Panayil P.O, Nooranadu, Palamel Village, Mavelikara Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
29-04-2019 Sima Sarkar Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
15-04-2019 Sunborne Energy Rajasthan Solar Pvt. Ltd. Versus NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-04-2019 U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Versus C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Limited High Court of Delhi
09-04-2019 Satya Prakash Versus Chairman Cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Represented by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Another Versus Shyamal Kanti Deb Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
03-04-2019 Kisan Cold Storage & Ice Factory Thru Partner 6114(M/S)2012 Versus Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-04-2019 Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Versus Sri Mujib Ullah Khan & Another Supreme Court of India
20-03-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Versus M. Palanivelu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2019 CMI Limited & Another Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
14-03-2019 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Versus M/s. Haryana Telecom Ltd. High Court of Delhi
12-03-2019 B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Limited, Rep. by its Director Arvind Joshi, Vishakapatnam Versus Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager (MM), Visakhapatnam & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-03-2019 S. P. Singla Constructions Private Limited & Another Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Limited High Court of Delhi
11-03-2019 Achilesh Nigam & Others Versus Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training Government of India & Another High Court of Delhi
27-02-2019 G.S. Panchatcharam Versus Union of India Rep.by The Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2019 Madhya Pradesh Sadak Parivahan Nigam Versus Pratima Sharma & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
25-02-2019 Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. [Uhbvnl] & Another Versus Adani Power Ltd & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2019 M/s. MAC Charles (I) Ltd., Bengaluru Versus M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
06-02-2019 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus K.K. Kakkar & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
31-01-2019 Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited High Court of Delhi
21-01-2019 The General Manager, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Salem Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-01-2019 Banita & Others Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
31-12-2018 MBVSR KVR (JV), Rep. by it authorized signatory, B. Srinivasul Reddy, Hyderabad Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Chief Project Manager High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-12-2018 NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. Versus Precision Technik Pvt Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-12-2018 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Versus Suryanarayanan & Another Supreme Court of India
11-12-2018 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Others Versus Dr. Balwant Singh, I.P.S. (Retired) Ex.Director General National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-12-2018 Union of India, Rep. by the Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chennai & Others Versus G. Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2018 R. Sambandam Versus General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kumbakonam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2018 M/s. Aastha Telecom Versus Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-12-2018 R. Sambandam Versus General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, CRDA Telecom District, Kumbakonam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-11-2018 G. Mohandas Versus The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
26-11-2018 Bimla Devi Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
15-11-2018 U.P. Jal Nigam & Others Versus Ajit Singh Patel & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2018 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Versus Aarogyasri Health Care Trust Rep. By Its Chief Executive Officer National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-11-2018 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Kolkata Versus M/s. Indus Towers Limited, West Bengal Competition Commission of India
03-11-2018 Bharat Sanchar Nigam & Another Versus Grahak Panchayat, Bhandara & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
01-11-2018 Lala Ram Sharma Versus Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
12-10-2018 Ram Kumar Bhattacharyya Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by the General, Kamrup Telecom District Guwahati & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-10-2018 Oma Ram Versus Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited High Court of Rajasthan
10-10-2018 U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Versus M/s. C & C Construction Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-09-2018 Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited, New Delhi Versus Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
05-09-2018 M/s. Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited High Court of Jharkhand
04-09-2018 The Government Telecommunication Employees' Cooperative Society Limited, Rep.by its Chief Executive Officer E. Kannan Versus The Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2018 Tutan Deb Versus The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-08-2018 Unity-Triveni-BCPL (JV) Versus Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. High Court of Delhi
29-08-2018 Manish Kumar Srivastava Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench
16-08-2018 Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Versus M/s. II & FS Engineering & Construction Company Limited High Court of Delhi
07-08-2018 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Corporate Office, New Delhi, Represented by Its Director General & Another Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department Of Telecommunications, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
02-08-2018 M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., through its Accounts Officer, Md. Jalil Aktar Versus The Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur High Court of Judicature at Patna
27-07-2018 Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Versus Ratna Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
19-07-2018 Nagar Palik Nigam, Ujjain Versus Rajpalsingh High Court of Madhya Pradesh
13-07-2018 The Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Fatehabad & Another Versus Raj Kumar & Others Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
06-07-2018 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Through its Executive Engineer & Another Versus Nihal Singh Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula