Ferodo Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997) 2 SCC 677; Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd.

7 SCC 435Reported decision2002#25507 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2012.

Judgments citing Ferodo Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997) 2 SCC 677; Union of India v. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd.

M/S. Flex Engineering Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, U.P

The appeals are allowed and the

C.A. No.-007152-007152 - 2004Supreme Court13 Jan 2012

Section 35H

…estion of marketability, as this Court has dealt with all relevant cases in A.P. SEB case9. In that case, the question was whether electric poles manufactured with cement and steel for the appellant Board were marketable. After considering 8 (2002) 7 SCC 435 9 (1994) 2 SCC 428 1 various cases on the question of marketability of goods, Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the Court, summed up the position thus: (SCC p. 434, para 10) “10. It would be evident from the facts and ratio of the above decisions that the goods in each case were found to be not marketable. Whether it is refine…

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

C.A. No.-003626-003626 - 2005Supreme Court14 Jan 2011

Section 18Section 27Section 35

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3626 OF 2005 Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ……….. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman …………..Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1354-1355 OF 2010 Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ………….. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat …………..Respondent J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, J. 1) A group of three appeals is filed by the appellant – Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., under Section 35 L (b) of the Central Excise 1 Act, 1944 (hereinafter ref…

Bata India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, New Delhi

C.A. No.-002377-002377 - 2002Supreme Court12 Apr 2010

Bench: The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (For Short ‘The Tribunal). The Member (Judicial) Took The View That The Product Would Not

Section 2

…s burden. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on various decisions of this court such as Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1997) 2 SCC 677; Union of India vs. Sonic Electrochem (P) Ltd. (2002) 7 SCC 435; Cipla Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore 2008 (225) ELT 403 (SC).; Gujarat Nermada Valley Fert. Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Ex.& Cus.(2005) 7 SCC 94. 11. Mr. V. Sekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the materials produced by the Revenue would be sufficient to hold that…