Tariff Item No.23A (4). In Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

3 SCC 480Reported decision1986#15575 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2001 to 2026.

Judgments citing Tariff Item No.23A (4). In Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. M/S Welkin Foods

C.A. No.-005531 - 2025Supreme Court06 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 46

…tended use of goods was through examining the product's function. This is because a product's function is often the clearest indicator of its intended use [See Atul Glass Industries (Pvt) Ltd. & Ors v. Collector of Central Excise & Ors, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 480 Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 Page 75 of 109 & Thermax Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 68]. This function-focused approach offers one way to determine intended use. However, it should be noted that function is not the only criterion. Depending on the spe…

Idea Cellular Limited (As Successor to Spice Communications Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, Circle- 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3425/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 40a

…uch is not a servant, but a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency  depending upon the duties or position of the servant."  Para 24: KhedutSahakari Ginning and Pressing Society v. State of Gujarat, (1971) 3 SCC 480: "The true nature of a transaction evidenced by a written agreement has to be ascertained from the covenants and not merely from what the parties choose to call it. The terms of the agreement must be carefully scrutinised in the light of the surrounding circumstances".  Para 26: Important criteria: o whether title in the goods, at any point, passe…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri V Karunakaran

ITA/248/2011HC Karnataka16 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 14(1)Section 15Section 17(1)Section 5(4)Section 5(5)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.248 OF 2011 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 9. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) AND: M/S. DREDGING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED N.M.P.T. YARD, PENAMBUR MANGALORE – 575 010 REPESENTED BY THE PARTNERS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G. RABHINATHAN & SRI. N. THIRUMALES…

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.

…1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1766 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ...APPELLANT VERSUS MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.67036710 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) holding that the coconut oil manufactured and packed in “small containers” by the respondent(s)assessee(s) is classifiable under Heading 1513 and…

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. St.Josphs Educational Society

Accordingly, all these STRs are allowed

ITTA/185/2017HC Telangana05 Jun 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

…n of ‘computer peripheral’, as per the common parlance test and end usage test. Reliance in this regard is placed on Apex Court judgment of Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Collector of Central Excise and Ors. reported in (1986) 3 SCC 480 and judgment of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner vs. M/s Voltas Limited (S.B. STR No. 232/2020 decided on 30.11.2022). It is contended that merely because CAT-5 and CAT-6 cables are also used for other applications like telecommunication, cable network or CCTV cameras etc., the same would not preclude them from being…

Real Optical Co vs. Appellate Collector of Customs

C.A. No.-000467-000467 - 1987Supreme Court01 Feb 2001

For Respondent: APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & ANR

…ich have specialized significance and utility. In this appeal also Rough Optical Blanks has specialized utility and, therefore, would not come under Tariff Item No.23A (4). In Atul Glass Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. versus Collector of Central Excise [1986] 3 SCC 480, the Bench of this court held that glass mirror cannot be classified as other glass or glassware set forth in Tariff Item 23-A (4) and must, therefore, fall under the residuary Tariff Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act. For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation to hold that Rough Optical Blanks would not come under Tariff Item…