CCE v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. (2009) 12 SCC 419 and CCE v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) 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

…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, the combined factors that require to be taken note of for the purpose of the classification of the goods are the composition, the product literature, the label, the character of the product and the user to which th…

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

Bench: Us.

…5) 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] 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. J…

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

…hin Chapter 30 or not is whether the product is understood as a pharmaceutical product in common parlance [see CCE v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved, (2009) 12 SCC 413; Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 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. CEE, Nagpur (2006) 3 SCC 266; State of Goa v. Colfoax Laboratories (…