( Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

4 SCC 51Reported decision1990#12745 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Judgments citing ( Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/S. M.M. Engineers and Consultants

ITA/72/2022HC Orissa08 Jan 2026

Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARISH TANDON (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. India Hiv Aids Alliance

ITA/72/2022HC Delhi01 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General alongwith Mr

Section 132(4)Section 3(1)Section 482

…748; (iv) Shalini Soni v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 544; (v) Ibrahim Ahamad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982) 3 SCC 440; (vi) Ahmed Nasar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 8 SCC 473; (vii) Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 51; (viii) State of Rajasthan v. Talib Khan, (1996) 11 SCC 393; and (ix) Chandra Prakash v. State of U.P., (2002) 4 SCC 234.” 8. It is furthermore submitted that, the Detenus representation dated 21.12.2021 seeking legible copies of RUDs was summarily rejected by Detaining Authority vide communication dated 28.12.2021 in the most casu…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Delhi vs. India Hiv Aids Alliance

ITA/73/2022HC Delhi01 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

For Respondent: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General alongwith Mr

Section 132(4)Section 3(1)Section 482

Smt. Kiran Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2850/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 10B

…) SCC 85,); conversion of coconut husk into fibres (in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. M/s. Coco Fibres, AIR 1991 SC 378); lamination of paper ( Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (1990) 4 SCC 51), were all held to be activities that qualify as "manufacture". In M/S. Sonebhadra Fuels vs Commissioner,Trade Tax (2006) 7 SCC 322 the Supreme Court clarified that the term manufacture is of wide import and that: "the expression 'manufacture' covers within its sweep not only such activities which bring into existence a new commercial commodity dif…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor

ITA/14/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…) SCC 85,); conversion of coconut husk into fibres (in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. M/s. Coco Fibres, AIR 1991 SC 378); lamination of paper ( Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (1990) 4 SCC 51), were all held to be activities that qualify as “manufacture”. In M/S. Sonebhadra Fuels vs Commissioner,Trade Tax (2006) 7 SCC 322 the Supreme Court clarified that the term manufacture is of wide import and that: “the expression 'manufacture' covers within its sweep not only such activities which bring into existence a new commercial commodity diff…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor

ITA/13/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…) SCC 85,); conversion of coconut husk into fibres (in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. M/s. Coco Fibres, AIR 1991 SC 378); lamination of paper ( Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (1990) 4 SCC 51), were all held to be activities that qualify as “manufacture”. In M/S. Sonebhadra Fuels vs Commissioner,Trade Tax (2006) 7 SCC 322 the Supreme Court clarified that the term manufacture is of wide import and that: “the expression 'manufacture' covers within its sweep not only such activities which bring into existence a new commercial commodity diff…

Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII vs. Ms. Kiran Kapoor

ITA/15/2015HC Delhi19 Jan 2015

Section 10ASection 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 260Section 80H

…) SCC 85,); conversion of coconut husk into fibres (in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. M/s. Coco Fibres, AIR 1991 SC 378); lamination of paper ( Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (1990) 4 SCC 51), were all held to be activities that qualify as “manufacture”. In M/S. Sonebhadra Fuels vs Commissioner,Trade Tax (2006) 7 SCC 322 the Supreme Court clarified that the term manufacture is of wide import and that: “the expression 'manufacture' covers within its sweep not only such activities which bring into existence a new commercial commodity diff…

Commnr. of Income Tax, Kerala vs. M/S. Tara Agencies

Appeal is allowed and the

C.A. No.-003568-003568 - 2001Supreme Court09 Jul 2007

For Respondent: M/s Tara Agencies

Section 35B

…279 and Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur (2005) 1 SCC 264, South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. & Another etc. v. Union of India & Another etc. AIR 1968 SC 922, Laminated Packings (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur (1990) 4 SCC 51, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. M/s COCO Fibres 1992 Supp (1) SCC 290, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa & Another v. Jagannath Cotton Company & Another (1995) 5 SCC 527, Ashirwad Ispat Udyog & Others v. State Level Committee & Others (1998) 8 SCC 85, State of Maharashtra v. Mahalaxmi Stores (…