Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs Pandit D.P. Sharma on 30 April, 2003

Commnr. Of Central Excise, Delhi vs M/S. Ishaan Research Lab. (P) Ltd.& Ors on 8 September, 2008

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 defined anywhere while the word "cosmetic" is defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court specifically held that the extent of the quantity of medicament used in a particular product and the fact that the use of the medicinal element in the product was minimal does not detract from it being classified as a medicament. It also held in para 22 that it was not necessary that the item must be sold under a doctor's prescription. Similarly, availability of the product across the counter in shops is not relevant as it makes no difference either way. As regards the Chapter Notes, the court found that 26 the use of the word "subsidiary" in the said note, i.e., Note No.2 of Chapter 22 was overlooked by the Revenue. It was also held that Revenue had failed to make any case in support of its stand that all the products fell under Chapter 33. However, the court rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of some of the products like herbal massage for women and Puma scalp tonic powder.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 13 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Balsara Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. on 26 July, 2006

6. Following the ratio of the apex court's judgments in CCE, Calcutta-IV v. Pandit D.P. Sharma , CCE, Nagpur v. Vicco Laboratories , Dabur (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur 2005 (182) ELT 290 (SC) and Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur , we set aside the impugned order dated 22.1.2004 and allow appeal No. E/1614/04. Consequent to the above decisions setting aside the classification of the product adopted by the department, namely under CET sub-heading 3306.00, the demand on mis basis also fails. Hence the impugned order dated 22.11.2000 is upheld and appeal No. E/542/01 of the Revenue is dismissed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dinesh Joshi S/O Shri Narayan Lal Joshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Mandsaur Mp ... on 18 November, 2020

The instructions issued by the department are binding on the authorities for the reason that the issuing a circular/instruction is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purposes of the provisions of the Act but also familiar with the nature and qualities of the commodities and also their use from time to time, therefore, such notifications/circulars/executive instructions in fiscal statutes are binding. Apart from the fact that circulars of the Board are binding on the tax department, they are in the nature of contemporanea expositing furnishing legitimate aid the construction to the relevant provisions. More so, it is necessary to issue such circulars to give effect to internal complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. [Vide State of Orissa Vs. M/s. Dinabandhu Sahu & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1561;K.P. Vergese Vs. I.T.O. Ernakulam & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1922; M/s. Keshavji Ravji & Co. Vs. CIT., AIR 1991 SC 1806; Commissioner of Income Tax Banglore Vs. Vasudeo V. Dempo, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 612; Collector of 18 Central Excise Bombay Vs. Jayant Dalal (P) Ltd., (1997) 10 SCC 402; Bengal Iron Corporation & Anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2414; Ranadey Micronutrients Vs. CCE, (1996) 10 SCC 387; Poulose & Mathen Vs. CCE & Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 50; British Machinery Supplies Co. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 9 SCC 663; and CCE Vs. Usha Martin Industries, (1997) 7 SCC 47; and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pandit D.P. Sharma, (2003) 5 SCC 288).
National Green Tribunal Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Deys Medical Stores Ltd. And Anr. on 27 July, 2007

8. As far as the first three items listed earlier are concerned, this Court has in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcullta IV v. Pandit D.P. Sharma and Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra , in connection with Banphool oil and Himtaj oil held that the ayurvedic hair oils, were medicines and should be properly classified under the Tariff Heading 3033.03, rather than under Tariff Heading 3305.10 or 3305.50. Indeed the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has not seriously contended otherwise in respect of the first three items.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Moriroku Ut India Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 April, 2007

6. Generally, extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not exercised unless petitioner exhausts the statutory remedies. Thus, first it is required to examine as to whether petition can be entertained or petitioner has to be asked to show cause and plead his case before the notice issuing authority. There is no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the circular issued by the higher authorities is binding upon the assessing authority. The instructions issued by the department are binding on the authorities for the reason that issuing a circular/instruction is intimately conversant not only with the policy of legislation for the purposes of the provisions of the Act but also familiar with the nature and qualities of the commodity and also its use from time to time. Therefore, such notifications/circulars/executive instructions in fiscal statutes are binding. Apart from the fact that circulars of the Board are binding on the tax department, they are in the nature of contemporanea expositio furnishing legitimate aid in the construction of the relevant provisions. More so, it is necessary to issue such circulars to give effect to internal complexity of fiscal adjustment of diverse elements. [Vide State of Orissa v. Dinabandhu Sahu & Sons , K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer , Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Vasudeo V. Dempo , Collector of Central Excise v. Jayant Dalai (Pvt.) Ltd. , Bengal Iron Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer , Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise , Poulose & Mathen v. CCE , British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India , Collector of Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Pandit D. P. Sharma .
Allahabad High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 3 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next