1981) 2 SCC 528, Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P

7 SCC 228Reported decision1998#21381 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Judgments citing 1981) 2 SCC 528, Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

C.A. No.-005531 - 2025Supreme Court06 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 46

…tries v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 Page 29 of 109 Pradesh, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 528, Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., reported in (1998) 7 SCC 228, Asian Paints India Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 470, and United Offset Process (P.) Ltd v. Asst. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 131] 42. For the purposes of understanding the considerations that weighed with this Court while applying the common parlance test in classification dispu…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR vs. M/S SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

C.A. No.-004928 - 2018Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 65Section 73Section 75Section 76Section 77Section 78

…mitted any error in holding that prior to 01.05.2006, the company/body corporate was not included within the meaning of ”consulting engineer”. 4.2 It is submitted that in the cases of Pappu Sweets and Biscuits v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P, Lucknow (1998) 7 SCC 228 and Gem Granites v. CIT, T.N., (2005) 1 SCC 289, this Court has held that subsequent legislation may be looked into to fix the proper interpretation of the statutory provision that stood earlier. 4.3 It is submitted that the amendment to Section 65(31) was prospective and not by way of clarification/removal of any doubt. It is submitted…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. MBL Research and Consusltancy Group(P) Limited

ITTA/58/2008HC Telangana28 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10Section 15Section 3

…learned Senior Advocate further argues that the subsequent development in law can be taken into consideration as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu Sweets and Biscuits and another vs Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow: (1998) 7 SCC 228 and relies particular emphasis on para 13, which is as under: “13. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew our attention to a similar exemption notification for the subsequent period issued by the State of U.P. wherein the relevant item is worded thus: 8 "Units making sweetmeats, namkin, reori, gazak (but excluding such confection…

COMMNR. CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. ACE AUTO COMP. LTD

The appeal is allowed; the

C.A. No.-003051-003051 - 2003Supreme Court16 Dec 2010

Section 11Section 35

…ntended that since both the Tribunal as also the Commissioner (Appeals) have concluded that the use of the word “TATA” was merely to denote that the product was meant for use in a particular vehicle, the affixation of 3 (2005) 11 SCC 149 4 (1998) 7 SCC 228 6 “TATA” was merely descriptive of the assessee’s product and not as if the goods had been marketed with another brand name. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Nirlex Spares (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise5; Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur Vs. Superex Industries, Bihar6 and Emkay Investments (P) Ltd. (sup…