Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE

9 SCC 83Reported decision2004#25847 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Judgments citing Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE

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

…t factor for, normally, the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. [Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2006) 3 SCC 266], State of Goa v. Colfax 46 Laboratories Ltd. [(2004) 9 SCC 83] and B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE [1995 Supp (3) SCC 1].] 35. However, there cannot be a static parameter for the correct classification of a commodity. This Court in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India: (1985) 3 SCC 284 has culled out this principle in the following words: (SCC p. 291, para 13) “13. To sum up the true positio…

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.

…lso not be a relevant factor for, normally, the extent of use of medicinal ingredients is very low because a larger use may be harmful for the human body. [Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE (2006) 3 SCC 266, State of Goa v. Colfax Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 83 and B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE 1995 Supp (3) SCC 1.] 62 35. However, there cannot be a static parameter for the correct classification of a commodity. This Court in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 284 has culled out this principle in the following words: (SCC p. 291, para 13) “13. To sum up the true position, th…

Commnr. of Central Excise vs. M/S. Wockhardt Life Science Ltd

C.A. No.-000783-000803 - 2004Supreme Court22 Feb 2012

Section 11Section 11A

…IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.783-803 OF 2004 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE ... APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.WOCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCES LTD...RESPONDENT O R D E R 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal Nos.E-1252-1271/02-MUM and E/3630-01-MUM dated 18.6.2003. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has reversed the findings and conclusions reached both by the Adjudicating Authority and the appellate authority. 2. The prima…