Swiss Ribbons (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

S. RAJENDRAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

…lution of a corporate debtor who is in the red, by an effective legal framework, would go a long way to support the development of credit markets. Since more investment can be 7 Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 407. 8 (2019) 4 SCC 17. 20 made with funds that have come back into the economy, business then eases up, which leads, overall, to higher economic growth and development of the Indian economy. What is interesting to note is that the Preamble does not, in any manner, refer to liquidation, which is only availed of as a last resort if there is either no resolution p…

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX HYDERABAD vs. ASHWANI HOMEO PHARMACY

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

…n forms or packings suitable for retail sale). It has been argued with reference to the decisions in BPL Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara: 1995 Supp (3) SCC 1 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Vicco Laboratories: (2005) 4 SCC 17 that some differences in the tariff entries would not change its character when the product remains the same. According to the learned counsel, insertion of Sub-Headings in Chapter 33 makes no difference as the product in question does not fit into any of the revised descriptions of “Hair oil” in Chapter 33, for AHAHO is clearly covered by the…

SUNDARESH BHATT vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…lause 11.6 of the Swiss Challenge Process and Clause 12.3 of the Anchor Bid Document. To buttress the argument that the entity issuing the tender is well empowered to cancel the process if the tender documents so permit, learned 16 (1996) 4 SCC 208 17 (2016) 14 SCC 172 Page 16 of 59 Civil Appeal No.7722 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.7731 of 2021 counsel has cited CWE-Soma Consortium (supra); Tata Cellular v. Union of India 18 and Air India v. Cochin International Airport Limited and Others 19. The decisions in Montecarlo Limited v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited 20 and Agmatel…

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LIFE SCIENCE LTD

…roduct in the market as the test for classification, in other words, the classification of commodity does not depend on the incidental character that the commodity takes but on its primary character. 40. In CCE, Nagpur v. Vicco Laboratories, (2005) 4 SCC 17, the point in consideration before this Court was that whether the products, namely; Turmeric skin cream, vajradanti toothpaste and tooth powder manufactured by the assessee would be classifiable as Pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30 or cosmetics under Chapter 33 of the Tariff Act. In that case, the assessee’s product…

M/S. QUINN INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the

…en to show that the product falls within a particular tariff item is always on the Revenue. [See: Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Sharma Chemical Works [(2003) 5 SCC 60] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Vicco Laboratories [(2005) 4 SCC 17]. In our view, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. In the circumstances, we find merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant-assessee. We are also of the view that the Tribunal has erred in interfering with the Order-in-Appeal No. 2/94(H)(D) CE of the Collector (Appeals) dated…