1998) 4 SCC 263, and Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay

Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. M/S Welkin Foods

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

…2026 INSC 19 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5531 OF 2025 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) …APPELLANT VERSUS M/S WELKIN FOODS …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.01.06 15:52:00 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 Page 1 of 109 J.B. PARDIWALA, J. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: INDEX A. FACTUAL M…

Commissioner of Central Excise Etc vs. M/S.Aishwarya Industries Through Its Managing Director Etc

Bench: Us.

…295] 37. A commodity cannot be classified in a residuary entry, in the presence of a specific entry, even if such specific entry requires the product to be understood in the technical sense (see Akbar Badrudin Giwani v. Collector of Customs (1990) 2 SCC 203 and Commr. of Customs v. G.C. Jain (2011) 12 SCC 713). A residuary entry can be taken refuge of only in the absence of a specific entry; that is to say, the latter will always prevail over the former [see CCE v. Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd. (1989) 3 SCC 343, HPL Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 5 SCC 208, Western India Plywoods Ltd. v. Collector of Custom…

Commnr.of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/S.Connaught Plaza Rest.(P)Ltd.N.D

…ing exemption to “softy ice-cream” dispensed through a vending machine, issued under Section 11C of the Act, the assessee will not be liable to pay any Excise duty in respect of “softy ice-cream” during the relevant period. 1 (1984) 4 SCC 540 2 (1990) 2 SCC 203 7 Page 8 JUDGMENT 11. In short, the case of the assessee is that “soft serve” is a product distinct and separate from “ice-cream” since the world over “ice-cream” is commonly understood to have milk fat content above 8% whereas ‘soft serve’ does not contain more than 5% of milk fat; it cannot be considered as “ice-cream” by common parlanc…

Commnr. of Central Excise vs. M/S. Wockhardt Life Science Ltd

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.783-803 OF 2004 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE ... APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.WOCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCES LTD...RESPONDENT O R D E R 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal Nos.E-1252-1271/02-MUM and E/3630-01-MUM dated 18.6.2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has reversed the findings and conclusions reached both by the Adjudicating Authority and the appellate authority. 2. The prima…

Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs. M/S I.T.C. Ltd

In the result, appeals are allowed

…http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 12043-54 of 1995 PETITIONER: Collector, Central Excise, Madras etc. RESPONDENT: M/s I.T.C. Limited, Bihar etc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/2003 BENCH: M.B. SHAH & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Shah, J. Question requiring determination in these appeals is whether ’cigarette packets’ would be ’other packing containers’ or ’boxes’ within the meaning of Tariff Item No.17 of Central Excise Tariff Act (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act)? It is the contention of the Department that cigarette packet is a ’small paper box’ a…