CCE v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd.

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

…rs the product in question, AHAHO. 8.3. Learned ASG has also argued that a specific entry would take precedence over a general entry, as held by this Court in Commissioner 26 of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd.: (2009) 12 SCC 419; and when “Hair oil” is specifically mentioned in Chapter 33 and when AHAHO’s common parlance is that of a general cosmetic requisite, classifying it as a ‘medicament’ is a far-fetched proposition. 8.4. In the other limb of submissions, learned ASG has contended that the common parlance test of the product is not in favour of the respondent,…

Bangalore Development Authority vs. Doddalakkappa

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

…own by decisions of the Supreme Court and division bench of 11 this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NARENDAR DOSHI, (2004) 2 SCC 801 AND COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, COCHIN VS. ALSTHONTND TRANSFORMERS LTD., (2005) 12 SCC 419 AND BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2018 KAR 2144, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the record, it is evident that similar acquisition Notifications are quashed by learned Single…

Commr.of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. M/S Universal Ferro & Allied Chem.Ld.&An

Bench: This Court. 2. The Facts In Brief Giving Rise To The Present Appeals Are As Under:

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 848­852 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S UNIVERSAL FERRO & ALLIED CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T 1. Being aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 21.10.2005 and 7.7.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”) thereby, allowing the appeals filed by the respondent – Assessee and its Chairman being Appeal Nos.E­2691­2693/03 arising out of Order­in­ Ori…

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

Bench: Us.

…han (1980) 4 SCC 71). 34. One of the essential factors for determining whether a product falls within Chapter 30 or not is whether the product is understood as a pharmaceutical product in common parlance [see CCE v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 419 and CCE v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 349]. Further, the quantity of medicament used in a particular product will also not be a relevant factor for, normally, the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. [Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 3 SCC 266, State…

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

…loss of revenue. [See: Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman15 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Limited16]. The provisions of PFA, 15 (2011) 2 SCC 601 16 (2009) 12 SCC 419 28 Page 29 JUDGMENT dedicated to food adulteration, would require a technical and scientific understanding of “Ice-cream” and thus, may require different standards for a good to be marketed as “ice-cream”. These provisions are for ensuring quality control and have nothing to do with the class of goods which are subject to excise duty under…

Madley Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Commnr of Central Excise&Customs, Daman

…estrictions contemplated by one statute should not be lightly and mechanically imported and applied to fiscal statue for non levy of excise duty, thereby causing a loss of revenue. This Court in CCE v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd., (2009) 12 SCC 419 has held: “55. True it is that Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 defines “Ayurvedic, siddha or unani drug” but that definition is not necessary to be imported in the new Tariff Act. The definition of one statute having different object, purpose and scheme cannot be applied mechanically to another statute. As stated abov…