1998) 7 SCC 228, Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

2 SCC 470Reported decision1988#23527 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2026.

Judgments citing 1998) 7 SCC 228, Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

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

…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 disputes, it is necessary to analyse the relevant case law carefully. For the clarity of e…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

C.A. No.-006703-006710 - 2009Supreme Court13 Apr 2018

Bench: Us.

…heading or not, has to be decided on the basis of as to how that article is understood in 'common parlance' or in 'commercial world' and not as per scientific or technical meaning. In the case of Asian Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1988) 2 SCC 470, it has been held that when definition of a word has not been given, it must be considered in its popular sense and not according to scientific or technical sense. 37. After referring to various judgments, in Plasmac Machine Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1991 Supp (1) SCC 57, it was held by this Court as u…

D.P. LON vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

The appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-005472-005473 - 2000Supreme Court13 Mar 2003

For Respondent: Collector of Central Excise & Customs

…is satisfied that the order of the commission is perverse, not based on evidence or on misreading of evidence, keeping in mind the fact that the commission is an expert body. In the case of M/s Asian Paints India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, (1988) 2 SCC 470, this Court held that the finding of fact arrived at on relevant and valid materials cannot be easily interfered with. We have carefully perused both the orders under appeal. In our opinion, the Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly decided that the sample appears to satisfy the requirements of definition of ‘Fancy Yarn’ as given in the stand…