Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant Private Ltd., New Delhi

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. M/S WELKIN FOODS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

…ise Tariff Act, 1985, was considered by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 Page 39 of 109 Private Limited, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 639. The revenue contended that ‘soft-serve’ should be classified under Heading 21.05 (Ice cream and other edible ice). In contrast, the respondent argued that ‘soft-serve’ was classifiable under Heading 04.04 (Other dairy produce) or Heading 2108.91(Edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included). The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…on of excisable goods shall be determined according to the headings and corresponding Chapter or Section Notes but where these are not clearly determinative of the proper classification, the same shall be effected according to the general 6 (2012) 13 SCC 639 29 rules of interpretation and according to the common parlance understanding of such goods. It was pointed out that fiscal statutes are framed at a point of time but are meant to apply for significant periods of time thereafter and they cannot, therefore, be expected to keep up with nuances and niceties. It was held that the terms of th…

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S D.L.STEELS THROUGH ITS MANAGER

The appeals are dismissed without

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration”. 12 See Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of Indian and Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 241, and Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant Private Ltd., New Delhi (2012) 13 SCC 639. Civil Appeal Nos. 2360-2376 of 2009 Page 9 of 26 ambiguity as to its meaning, it must be interpreted for the purpose of classification in the popular sense, which is the sense attributed to it by those people who are conversant with the subject matter that the statute is dealing with. This principle should commend to the authoritie…

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:

…adulteration, would require a technical and scientific understanding of “ice­ cream” and thus, may require different standards for a good to be marketed as “ice­cream”. These provisions are for ensuring quality control and 6 (2012) 13 SCC 639 17 have nothing to do with the class of goods which are subject to excise duty under a particular tariff entry under the Tariff Act. These provisions are not a standard for interpreting goods mentioned in the Tariff Act, the purpose and object of which is completely different.” 22. This Court has held, that it is a settled principle in excise cl…

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

Bench: Us.

…ordinary parlance as also in their commercial sense be spoken as coal." 47. After referring to various judgments on the point of common parlance test, in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant Private Ltd., New Delhi (2012) 13 SCC 639, it was held as under:- "33. Therefore, what flows from a reading of the aforementioned decisions is that in the absence of a statutory definition in precise terms; words, entries and items in taxing statutes must be construed in terms of their commercial or trade understanding, or according to their popular meaning. In other words they have to b…