Alpine Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi

Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/S. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…ecifically dealt with in the headings in the First Schedule to the Act of 1985 and the corresponding HSN entries. 38. Long prior thereto, in Indo International Industries vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh8, this Court held that any 7 (2003) 3 SCC 111 8 (1981) 2 SCC 528 30 term or expression defined in a taxing statute must be understood in the light of the definitions given in the Act, in the absence of which the meaning of the term as understood in common parlance or commercial parlance must be adopted. 39. It is also to be noted that Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation in the Fir…

Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad vs. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy

Bench: The Commissioner Of Customs & Central Excise ........................ 9 Before The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ............ 18 Rival Submissions .................................................................................... 24 Points For Determination ........................................................................... 31 The Principles In The Cited Decisions ......................................................... 33 Application Of The Principles & Twin Test ................................................ 55 Whether Re-Look At Classification Of The Product In Question Justified ........ 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 76

…ional utility and predominant or primary usage of the commodity which is being classified must be taken into account, apart from the understanding in common parlance. [See O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 2 SCC 460] , Alpine Industries v. CCE [(2003) 3 SCC 111] , Sujanil Chemo Industries v. CCE & Customs [(2005) 4 SCC 189] , ICPA Health Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 4 SCC 481] , Puma Ayurvedic Herbal [(2006) 3 SCC 266] , Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. [(2008) 13 SCC 349] and CCE v. Uni Products India Ltd. [(2009) 9 SCC 295] ] *** *** *** 39. In our view, as we have already stated,…

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

Bench: Us.

…e Supreme Court on the dispute regarding classification for excise duty, the product – Lal Dant Manjan manufactured by Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. reported in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. CCE9. The 8(2003) 3 SCC 111 9 (1996) 9 SCC 402 21 manufacturer claimed the product to be an Ayurvedic medicinal preparation product for dental care. The view of the Tribunal was upheld by this Court by holding (at SCC pp.404­05, para 3) that “ordinarily a medicine is prescribed by a medical practitioner and it is used for a limited time…

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

Appeals are dismissed

…hort, it was submitted that in common parlance it was not called as perfumed hair oil. The court also referred to the law laid down in Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan’s case (supra) and Alpine Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [(2003) 19 3 SCC 111] and took stock of the arguments that the common parlance test as laid down in these two cases was the only relevant test. On the other hand it was pointed out by the assessee that Chapter 30 dealt with all types of medicines and not only Ayurvedic medicines. It was further urged that the medicaments could be as per the formula set out in various…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat vs. M/S. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd

…use it is put to by the customers who use it. The burden of proving that Banphool Oil is understood by the customers as a hair oil was on the Revenue\005" In Alpine Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [2003 (152) E.L.T.16 (SC)] : (2003) 3 SCC 111], this Court held that ’Lip salve’ is a kind of ’barrier cream’ or a protective cream against skin irritants and, therefore, not a medicament, stating : "\005Such preparations which have a subsidiary curative or prophylactic value clearly fall under Entries 33.03 to 33.07 as per Note 2 under Chapter 33. The product clearly is covered by Entr…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. M/S Sharma Chemical Works

…imited time and not every day. It was held that as the product was not sold under a medical prescription it was not an Ayurvedic Medicament. Reliance was also placed in the case of Alpine Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in [2003] 3 SCC 111. In this case the question was whether "Lip Salve" could be classifiable as a preparation for care of skin or as a medicament. Admittedly the product was mainly supplied to the Defence Department for use by military personnel who are posted in high altitude areas. The Court approved the principle laid down in Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan ’s case…