Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 7 March, 2006
The Apex Court in Shree Baidyanath Ayuryed Bhayan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur (supra) held thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 62 (0.67 seconds)Documents citing
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 30 March, 1995
Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 16 July, 2002
In this connection the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shri Baidyanath Ayurvede Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 492 (S.C) has held that the goods are to be classified according to the popular meaning attached to them by those using the product. In the instant case, when the impugned goods are sold by the appellant those using the product identified the goods as industrial water treatment plant only and not as nipples, hose, couples, pipes, motors etc. and the invoices are the speaking documentary evidence for the above facts.
Mayil Mark Nilayam vs Superintendent Of Central Excise on 23 February, 2000
In the present case there is a manufacture as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur - . In the same analogy pulverising the Mohwa Deoiled make a new commercial product called 'Arapputhool' emerges and the process amounts to manufacture in the light of the ratio of decisions in the Supreme Court. Arapputhool used for cleaning utensils is classifiable under Chapter 3405.40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as Scouring Powder. Under Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules any person who is engaged in the production or manufacture, or any process of production or manufacture of any specified goods included in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 shall get himself registered with the proper officer in such a manner as may be prescribed. Such Assessee shall file with Superintendent of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over the factory, a declaration stating the full description of all excisable goods produced or manufactured by him.
Commissioner Of Customs Central Excise ... vs Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy on 3 May, 2023
In the said
previous decision, being the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan
Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur: (1996) 9 SCC 402, the issue
12 ‘DML’, for short.
Mrf Ltd. vs Cce on 5 January, 1996
14. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Baidyanath Ayurvedic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise , following the Supreme Court ruling in the India Cements Ltd. case held that if the appellant had paid duty under compulsion and addressed a letter of protest even if actual protest endorsements are not made on duty paying documents such as deposit challan, monthly assessment return etc. and other related documents that would not detract from the position that the appellants were paying duty under compulsion.
Connaught Plaza Restaurant (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of C. Ex. on 29 January, 2003
6.2 In view of the technical literature, ISI Specification and provisions made in Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules made thereunder, the impugned product cannot be classified as ice cream merely on the ground that the consumer understood the same as ice cream or the ingredients of both the products are same. The statement given by the Managing Director also cannot be a basis for determining the exact classification of the product in the Central Excise Tariff. The ratio of the decision in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Limited case is not applicable to the facts of the present matter. The dispute in the said case was as to whether the 'Dant Manjan Lal' is Ayurvedic medicine or Tooth Powder'. In that context, the Supreme Court observed that resort should not be had to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms and expressions used but to their popular meaning which does not mean that if a particular product is not ice cream it can be classified as ice cream because some consumers treated it as ice cream. Accordingly, the product in question is not classifiable under Heading 21.05 of the Central Excise Tariff.
Shahnaz Ayurvedics And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 14 May, 2003
12.5 On combined reading of Note 2 to Chapter 33 and Note 1 (d) to Chapter 30, it is clear that preparations of Chapter 33 even if they contain subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents or are held out as having subsidiary curative or prophylactic value remain classified in Chapter 33. The Apex Court in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan case, supra, did not agree with the contention of the manufacturer that their product "Dant Manjan Lal" is an ayurvedic medicinal preparation for dental care. The Supreme Court has held that "ordinarily a medicine is prescribed by a Medical practitioner and it is used for a limited time and not everyday unless it is so prescribed to deal with a specific disease like diabetics."
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 10 July, 1995
He referred to the label of the product, and stated that it was a concentrated product. He also referred to Chapter Notes 5(b), (c) and (j) under Chapter 21 of the Tariff. The expression "not including" means not containing for the purposes of Heading No. 22.02 of the Tariff. The ld. SDR submitted that the Hon. Supreme Court's decision relied upon by the appellants was in the context of the Fruits Product Order, 1955; further as held by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, 1985 (6) E.T.R 265, the definition in other enactment was not relevant.
State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Deys Medical Stores Ltd. And Anr. on 27 July, 2007
5. At this stage it must be mentioned that in this Civil Appeal the question of classification relates to "Himtaj Oil". On board along with this Appeal were a number of other Appeals which related to classification of "Bhanphool Oil". The arguments of learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, in this Appeal were based upon the submissions made in respect of "Bhanphool oil". It was submitted that if the submissions regarding "Bhanphool oil" are accepted by this Court then on the same reasoning it would have to be held that "Himtaj oil" was not an Ayurvedic medicament. Reliance was also placed upon the authority of this Court in the case of Shree Baidyanath Ayurvedic Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur . In this case it is held that resort to scientific and technical meanings should not be had but that the expression must be understood in its popular meaning. It was held that ordinarily a medicine would be prescribed by medical practitioner and would be used for a limited time and not every- day unless it was so prescribed to deal with a specific disease likes diabetes. On this basis it was held that the product in question namely "Dant Manjan Lal" (tooth powder) was not a medicine.
Gujco Carriers vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 February, 2002
(c) The decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1996] 9 SCC 402 was relied upon for the proposition that, in interpreting statutes like the Excise Act, the primary object of which is to raise revenue and for which purpose various products are differently classified, resort should not be had to the scientific and technical meaning of the terms and expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say the meaning attached to them by those using the product.