38. In Dabur Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd.(Now Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd) vs. Commissioner of Customs (I) Nhava Sheva

The appeals are disposed of along with any pending applications

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO 5373 OF 2019 Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Now HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd.) … Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva … Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 6715 OF 2019 Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant VERSUS Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva … Respondent JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. 1. The question that arises for our consideration pertains to correct classification of Auto…

Commr.of Central Excise vs. M/S Uni Products India Ltd. Through Its Director

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 302-303 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III ...APPELLANT VERSUS M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. ...RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. These two appeals against the decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) rendered on 16th July, 2008 require adjudication on the question as to whether 1 “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” o…

Devas Multimedia Private Limited vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

…e in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner, and in no other manner [vide Chandra Kishore Jha v.Mahavir Prasad [(1999) 8 SCC 266 : AIR 1999 SC 3558] (SCC para 17 : AIR para 12),Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka [(2001) 4 SCC 9 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 652 : AIR 2001 SC 1512] (SCC para 23 : AIR para 22), etc.]. Section 86(1)(f) provides a special manner of making references to an arbitrator in disputes between a licensee and a generating company. Hence by implication all other methods are barred. 39. It may be mentioned that the Mimansa rules of interpretation were o…

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

Bench: Us.

…strued in its popular sense. Popular sense means that sense which people conversant with the subject matter with which the statute is dealing, would attribute to it.”" 38. In Dabur Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (2005) 4 SCC 9, it was held that in classifying a product, the scientific or technical meaning is not to be resorted to but the test was to see what the persons using the product understand it to be. 39. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited (2012) 5 SCC 585, this Court emphasized "Common Parlance Test" or the "Commercial U…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ishaan Research Lab. (P) Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

…) 5 SCC 288; Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 9 SCC 136], Amrutanjan Ltd. v. CCE [(1996) 9 SCC 413], BPL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE [1995 Supp (3) SCC 1], Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd v. CCE [(2004) 4 SCC 787]; Dabur India Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 4 SCC 9], Manish Pharma Plasto (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(1999) 112 ELT 22 (Del)], the court came to the conclusion that the word “medicament” was not defined anywhere while the word “cosmetic” is defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court specifically held that the extent of the quantity of medicament used in a particular product…