Krishena Kumar v. Union of India

4 SCC 207Reported decision2005#20853 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2018.

Judgments citing Krishena Kumar v. Union of India

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7 vs. M/S RAINBOW POWDER COATERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 08

ITA/29/2018HC Delhi12 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 13Section 151

…nce of validity, once a trademark is registered.” 34. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr.Bhatia. It is settled law that every decision must be read in the context of the questions arising therein [See Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 207; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1992) 4 SCC 363; and Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar Khanna, 241 (2017) DLT 481]. Hence, the said passages cannot be read in isolation. The said observations were made by the Full Bench while deciding the following issue: “I. Whether the suit for infringement…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AUSTRALIAN FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LTD

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

C.A. No.-002826-002826 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 35L

…ihar1 for the proposition that a physical manifestation of a brand name on a good is a necessary requirement for disqualification from the exemption granted by the concerned notification. Learned counsel also relied on the same decision to urge 1 (2005) 4 SCC 207 6 Page 7 JUDGMENT that this Court cannot look into the surrounding circumstances of a good, especially the specific outlet from which it is sold, to construe if it is branded or not; scrutiny, in his opinion, must be limited to the specified good itself. The relevant paragraph of the order on which emphasis was laid, reads as f…

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AUSTRALIAN FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LTD

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

C.A. No.-002826-002826 - 2006Supreme Court14 Jan 2013
Section 35L

…ihar1 for the proposition that a physical manifestation of a brand name on a good is a necessary requirement for disqualification from the exemption granted by the concerned notification. Learned counsel also relied on the same decision to urge 1 (2005) 4 SCC 207 6 Page 7 JUDGMENT that this Court cannot look into the surrounding circumstances of a good, especially the specific outlet from which it is sold, to construe if it is branded or not; scrutiny, in his opinion, must be limited to the specified good itself. The relevant paragraph of the order on which emphasis was laid, reads as f…

COMMNR. CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI vs. M/S. ACE AUTO COMP. LTD

The appeal is allowed; the

C.A. No.-003051-003051 - 2003Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 11Section 35

…Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.8, it is trite that the foundation of the Revenue’s case is laid in the show cause notice, and the same must be confined to the allegations contained therein. 5 (2008) 2 SCC 628 6 (2005) 4 SCC 207 7 (2006) 7 SCC 592 8 (2007) 8 SCC 89 7 10. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be useful to extract relevant portions of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28th February, 1993 as amended, which grants exemption from payment of Central Excise duty to small scale industrial units. It read as: “4. The exemption contained in this notif…

Krishena Kumar v. Union of India (4 SCC 207) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax