Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 673); and State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce

9 SCC 136Reported decision2004#25824 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2018.

Judgments citing Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 673); and State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Visakhapatnam vs. L. Suryakantham, Visakhapatnam

ITTA/280/2017HC Telangana08 Oct 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

…v. State of Assam (AIR 1961 SC 232); Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1962 SC 1406); Bhagatram Rajeev Kumar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 673); and State of Bihar v. Bihar Chamber of Commerce (1996) 9 SCC 136, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the said petition and connected matters on the ground that the levy was compensatory in character hence outside the purview of Article 301. 4. The correctness of the said order was assailed before this Court in Jindal Stripe Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 60.…

Commnr.of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. M/S.Connaught Plaza Rest.(P)Ltd.N.D

C.A. No.-005307-005308 - 2003Supreme Court27 Nov 2012

Section 11ASection 35L

…ls were under consideration. One was with respect to Vicks Vapo Rub and Vicks Cough Drops while the other was with respect to Sloan's Balm and Sloan's Rub. It was observed that when there is no definition of any kind in the 12 (1996) 9 SCC 402 13 (2004) 9 SCC 136 18 Page 19 JUDGMENT relevant taxing statute, the articles enumerated in the tariff schedules must be construed as far as possible in their ordinary or popular sense, that is, how the common man and persons dealing with it understand it. The Court held that in both the cases the customers, the practitioners in Ayurvedic medicine, the dealers…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ishaan Research Lab. (P) Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-007357-007372 - 2001Supreme Court08 Sept 2008

Section 11ASection 4(4)(c)

…hu Rakshan tel, Puma neel tulsi, etc. After referring to the decisions referred to above and other decisions like CCE v. Richardson Hindustan Ltd. [(2004) 9 SCC 156; CCE v. Pandit D.P. Sharma[(2003) 5 SCC 288; Naturalle Health Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 9 SCC 136], Amrutanjan Ltd. v. CCE [(1996) 9 SCC 413], BPL Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE [1995 Supp (3) SCC 1], Muller & Phipps (India) Ltd v. CCE [(2004) 4 SCC 787]; Dabur India Ltd. v. CCE [(2004) 4 SCC 9], Manish Pharma Plasto (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(1999) 112 ELT 22 (Del)], the court came to the conclusion that the word “medicament” was not…