Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited

5 SCC 585Reported decision2012#21105 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited

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

C.A. No.-005531 - 2025Supreme Court06 Jan 2026

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

Section 46

…Tax v. Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 558, Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 266 & Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 585] ‘Use’ or ‘Adaptation’ inherent in the Tariff Heading 79. In Indian Tool Manufacturers (supra), this Court examined whether “Throw Away Inserts” should be classified under Tariff Item No. 51A (iii) or Tariff Item No. 62 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. At the relevant time, the tariff items stated: (a) 51A(iii) - Tools designed t…

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

C.A. No.-009525 - 2018Supreme Court03 May 2023

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

Section 11

…words and expressions, they ‘have to be construed in the sense in which persons dealing with them understand i.e., as per trade and understanding and usage.’ Further the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited: (2012) 5 SCC 585 has been relied upon to submit that for classifying a taxable commodity, there is no fixed test and the decision on the classification of a particular article would depend on the tangible material or as to how it is comprehended in “common parlance” or “commercial world” or “trade circle”, or in its popular sense. 9. On the other hand, learn…

COMMR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

C.A. No.-000302-000303 - 2009Supreme Court01 May 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

Section 38A

…of the appellant. In our opinion, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is unobjectionable.” 32 22. Emphasis on technical meaning has been highlighted in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Wockhardt Life Sciences Limited [(2012) 5 SCC 585] for resolving classification related disputes of goods. In this case, it has been held that a commodity cannot be classified in a residuary entry if there is a specific entry, even if the specific entry requires the product to be understood in a technical sense. 23. “The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all t…

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

C.A. No.-006703-006710 - 2009Supreme Court13 Apr 2018

Bench: Us.

…t 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 Usage Test" in paras (33) to (37) and held as under:- "33. There is no fixed test for classification of a taxable commodity. This is probably the reason why the “common parlance test” or the “commercial usage test” are the most common (see A. Nagaraju Bros. v. State of A.P. 1994 S…