Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Panama Chemical Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 July, 1992

Panama Chemical Works And Anr. vs Commissioner, Sales Tax on 4 January, 2000

11. Thus, the impugned order of this petition, annexure P6, dated July 9, 1990 is quashed. Similarly, the main impugned order of connected M.P. No. 1539 of 1991, annexure P7, dated July 30, 1991, passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Indore and the consequent demand notices issued, stand hereby quashed. Both the authorities shall now decide the matter in the light of division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India (1992) 62 ELT 241. The respondent/State, if, so desires, shall be at liberty to cite any other judgment on its behalf, which would also be considered by the said authorities. Thus, this and the connected petitions stand disposed of, but, with no order as to costs. Security amount if, deposited, be refunded back of the petitioners after its due verification.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - D Verma - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I vs Dabur India Ltd. on 12 April, 2002

6. The Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut (supra) relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. Union of India (supra) and gave a finding that ingredients of Swad and Hajmola Candy is one and the same and held that Hajmola Candy which contains 25% active ingredients as per Ayurvedic Texts and 75% sugar for taste, are classifiable as Ayurvedic medicine under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Revenue had not challenged the above decisions. The admitted facts of the present case are that the active ingredients of Hajmola Tablets are 75% as against 3% Swad Tablets and 35% in respect of Hajmola Candy and the ingredients are the same as in the case of Hajmola Candy, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are rejected.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naturelle Health Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Collr. Of C. Ex. on 17 October, 1995

It would appear that this phrase has been transplanted from Item 14E to the present heading. It is possible to speculate legitimately that in framing the Item 14E reference [were] made to the Drugs Act. Be that as it may, in the absence of the definition of the terms 'exclusively ayurvedic' in the tariff, we have to refer to the Drugs Act where identical terminology is employed. The ratio of the Panama Chemicals case is that one has to look to the scientific and technical aspects of the product with the aid of Drugs and Cosmetics Act to see if it is an ayurvedic product. The same criterion would apply to see whether a product is an exclusively ayurvedic medicament in [the] absence of a definition of the term in the tariff.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bay Talkitec Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 20 June, 2003

18. The Commissioner is not justified in disregarding the technical opinion furnished by the appellants and such disregarding of expert opinion has not been approved by the Madhya Pradesh High Court as rendered in the case of Panama Chemical Works v. UOI (supra); Mangal Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. UOI (supra); Medium Imageology Center Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad (supra) and that of Life Line Systems Pvt. Ltd. v, CC, New Delhi (supra).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reliance Generators Pvt. Ltd vs The Special Commissioner & on 14 November, 2007

17. The judgment in Panama Chemical's case, clearly demonstrates that only in the absence of a specific definition, the doctrine of commercial nomenclature and trade understanding should be applied. The Division Bench has further clarified that in cases where the application of commercial meaning or trade nomenclature runs counter to the statutory context in which, the said word was used, then the said principle of interpretation should not be applicable. In the instant case, "Generating sets, transformers etc., fall under Entry 5(i) of Part 'E' of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act and therefore, theory propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Panjon Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 May, 1993

7. I have had the advantage of perusing the order prepared by my learned brother V.D. Gyani, J. There is no dispute that the question whether the preparation is an Ayurvedic preparation or not is directly under the consideration of the Supreme Court as a result of the decision of this Court on the question having been put to challenge after its decision in Misc.Petition No. 1297/89 (Panama Chemical Works and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 2nd July 1992 []. Consequently no purpose would be served by referring this question to a larger Bench because the finding of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid petition will be binding in this case and ultimately the fate of the present petition will be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court. It is for this specific reason that I am refraining from expressing myself on the answer to the question whether the preparation in question is an Ayurvedic preparation or not. It is for this reason I find it difficult to concur with the observation in paragraph of the proposed order that the matter stands concluded by the order passed in Misc. Petition No. 1297 of 1989. To make the matter clear, but for the challenge pending in the Supreme Court, the result of which will govern the petition in hand also, I might have taken a different view from the conclusion arrived at in Misc. Petition No. 1297 of 1989. However, on account of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in proceedings against the order of this Court in Misc. Petition No. 1297 of 1989 shall govern the present petition also, I agree with the result mentioned in paragraph 6 of the proposed order.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dabur India Ltd. vs Cce on 29 September, 2000

29. Now, in the light of the aforesaid authorities it has to be seen as to how the medicine in question i.e. SWAD is known in the common parlance or in commercial use. There is not an iota of evidence to show that this product is sold as a confectionary and is commonly used as a confectionery by the consumers. In Tariff Entry 3003.30 the medicaments including those in Ayurvedic, Unani, Sidh and Homoeopathy system have been mentioned as the goods falling within that entry. Therefore, for ascertaining whether a product is an Ayurvedic product or not the facts on the record have to be perused and in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani's case (supra), the Leukoplast (India) Ltd.'s case (supra) and the case of Ramesh Chemical Industries (supra), this Court has to look to the scientific and technical aspect of the product with the aid of the Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next