Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Pardeep Aggarbatti, Ludhiana vs State Of Punjab & Others on 23 October, 1997

Sri Mahalakshmi Flour Mills vs Commr. Of Cus. on 20 February, 2004

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. From the records, we find that the appellants have imported "Desapped Sandal Wood (Roots)". The appellants have stated that the imported goods would be converted into powder and used in the manufacture of 'Aggarbatti'. Plants/parts of plants of a kind used primarily in perfumery, etc. are covered by Chapter 12 of the Customs Tariff Act. Since the goods are to be used in the manufacture of 'Aggarbatti' for giving fragrance, therefore, they are primarily used for the purpose of perfumery. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 219 (S.C.) relied upon by the appellants is not applicable in the present case as in that case the Apex Court has held that -
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Johnson & Johnson Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 October, 2002

(e) The Collector has committed a patent error in holding that the doctrine of Noscitur a Socii is not applicable to the CETA. It has repeatedly been applied in the context of the CETA in similar situations. Reference was made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE [1990 (47) E.L.T. 491] and in Pradeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab [1997 (96) E.L.T. 219 (S.C.)].
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Himani Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 2 September, 1998

30. Thus we have seen so far that none of the claims of the company, namely, that Boroplus is a Homeopathic medicine for a certain period, that it is an Ayurvedic drug for a certain period, that it is a drug in the general sense under Section 3(b) of the Drugs Act, and that it is a patent or proprietary medicine under Section 3(h) of the Drugs Act, can be accepted. The authorities below have assessed sales of Boroplus as a cosmetic. I have already pointed out that under the 1954 Act, unlike drug, cosmetic has not been notified according to definition of "cosmetic" in the Drugs Act. The relevant entry in the notification has been quoted in the foregoing paragraph 13 of this judgment. It was argued on behalf of the company that the onus of establishing that Boroplus comes within the entry of cosmetic under Notification No. 3123-F.T. dated July 15, 1975 read with Notification No. 1206-F.T. dated March 26, 1979 is on the Revenue. As regards interpretation of the entry, Mr. R.N. Bajoria, learned counsel for the company, relied on Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab [1997] 107 STC 561 (SC). In that case it was held that entries in Schedules to sales tax and excise statutes list some articles separately and some articles are grouped together ; when they are grouped together, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein according to the principle of noscitur a sociis. In the present case, "cosmetics of all varieties" have been grouped together with various items. Accordingly, the meaning of "cosmetics" should be drawn from a consideration of the entire entry. Although in common parlance a cosmetic is an article which is meant for beautification or promoting attractiveness of human body, several articles have been included in the relevant entry which have directly or indirectly certain qualities of mitigation or prevention of disorders in human beings. For instance, blemish removers, cleansing milk and depilatories (hair removers) are also included in the same entry. On this question it is difficult to disagree with the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below. Although in respect of both Homeopathic and Ayurvedic Boroplus it has been claimed that it is an antiseptic cream, at the same time in respect of Homeopathic Boroplus it was stated that it was soothingly perfumed and that it was a protective and soothing emollient for chapped skin, cracked nipples, minor cuts, burns and dry skin diseases. On the carton of Ayurvedic Boroplus it is claimed that it is an antiseptic cream (which is undisputed) and is "a preventive, curative and healing Ayurvedic ointment for dry skin diseases, cuts, scratches, minor burns, wounds, cold sores, chapped skin, furuncle, impetigo and intertrigo".
State Taxation Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gujco Carriers vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 February, 2002

(d) The decision of the Supreme Court in Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab [1997] 107 STC 561; [1997] 8 SCC 511, was cited for the proposition that entries in the Schedules of sales tax and excise statutes list where some articles are separately shown and some articles are grouped together, when they are grouped together, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 36 - K A Puj - Full Document

Ramanshree Shopping Arcade Pvt. Ltd. ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 11 November, 1998

6. Mr. GKV Murthy, has referred to the decision given in the case of Pardeep Aggarbatti v. State of Punjab, AIR 1998 SC 171 on the point that if articles are specified separately and others are grouped together in respect of items which are grouped together each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein. This interpretation was taken by the Apex Court on the principle of noseitur a sociis. While interpreting the word 'luxury' it was held by the Apex Court that it has no application to Dhoop and Agarabatti.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next