Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.78 seconds)

United Trading Agency vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 13 December, 1995

The act of brushing one's teeth with tooth-paste or tooth-powder is not certainly in the same nature as taking or using medicine. Soaps, scents and perfumes were separately listed because they were subject to different rates and he therefore, took the view that the intention of the framers of the notifications was to include all articles in the expressions "cosmetics and toilet requisites", as are popularly regarded as articles falling within that category but such of those articles as were intended to be taxed at different rates were separated and listed separately. He also took note of the fact that even the manufacturers of dentifrices like tooth-paste and tooth-powder regarded them as items of cosmetic and toiletry and he referred to Ciba which is a well-known company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. He noticed the decision in Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax wherein it was decided that in common parlance, a tooth-powder is considered as a toilet article. That meaning accords with the dictionary meaning as well. He did not deal with the material produced by the appellant. He disposed of the same by stating that the voluminous, documentary evidences produced by the respondent before the first appellate authority pertains to the scientific definitions and the analysis tried to be carried out thereon. However, going into the scientific details would become necessary if the entry in the Schedule can be interpreted in two different ways or if there is any ambiguity. Otherwise, it is enough to know how the trader, the buyer, the seller and the consumer understand the issue.
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 7 - B Padmaraj - Full Document

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise And Anr. on 7 June, 1985

103. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of Shree Baidyanath passed by Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Appellate Collector, Central Excise and Customs, New Delhi, in the case of M/s Hamdard Laboratoies reported in 1981 ECR 596 D, and that of Shri B.N. Rangwani, the then Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta in Order-in-Original No. 329/14-E/82/Collector/12/83, dated 31-1-1983 and that of Civil Judge, Thane in the case of Vicco Vajradanti do not advance the case of the appellants in any way. The judgment passed by Shri Bhatnagar is in appeal before this Tribunal and the other two judgments are also not binding on the Tribunal which have little significance in the presence of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarin Chemical Laboratories (Supra). Some other judgments cited by Shree Baidyanath holding 'Boroline' and 'water' meant to be dissolved for administering injection in human being as 'drug' also do not help Shree Baidyanath in the present case. 'Dant Manjan' was not the product in dispute in those cases.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

The Commissioner, Trade Tax vs Singhal Brothers on 28 October, 2005

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, V.P. AIR 1972 SC 65 also held that tooth powder in common parlance is considered as a toilet article. In this judgment, Supreme Court referred to the decisions of Allahabad, Bombay and Madras High Courts mentioned above and confirmed the view taken y those High Courts that the tooth powder is a 'toilet requisite'."
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - R Kumar - Full Document

Ponds India Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Trade Tax on 28 October, 2005

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. AIR 1972 SC 65 also held that tooth powder in common parlance is considered as a toilet article. In this judgment, Supreme Court referred to the decisions of Allahabad, Bombay and Madras High Courts mentioned above and confirmed the view taken y those High Courts that the tooth powder is a 'toilet requisite'."
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

The Commissioner, Sales Tax vs Heera Lal Ramesh Chandra on 25 January, 2007

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. AIR 1972 SC 65 also held that tooth powder in common parlance is considered as a toilet article. In this judgment, Supreme Court referred to the decisions of Allahabad, Bombay and Madras High Courts mentioned above and confirmed the view taken by those High Courts that the tooth powder is a 'toilet requisite'.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Law), ... vs V.V. Kammath And Sons on 28 January, 1998

The question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1970] 26 STC 339 was only whether "sarin tooth powder" is a cosmetic or toilet requisite or an unspecified commodity liable to sales tax at all points of sale as per the provisions contained under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Referring to the dictionary meaning as well as the use of the word in common parlance the Supreme Court took the view that tooth powder is considered as toilet.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - G Sivarajan - Full Document

M/S. The Himalaya Drug Company vs The State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2020

20. The said reasoning may not be a convincing one. However, the Apex Court in M/s Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. (Supra) held that Tooth Paste and Tooth Powder are toilet articles and will not be Cosmetics in common parlance. In the above view of the matter, contention raised by the petitioners with regard to Tooth Paste which is one of the products, for which clarification is sought for has to fail. With regard to Baby Soap as well, Rule 23 of the Rules of Interpretation specifically excludes Soaps from the purview of Entry 36. In view of the fact that Soaps stand specifically excluded under Rule 23, we are not called upon to decide the question whether Baby Soap is a toilet article in common parlance or not. The clarification given in Annexure-IV order with regard to Soap also is therefore perfectly sustainable. With regard to the clarification sought for in respect of Mouth Wash, Gift Packs and Ayurvedic Baby Powder, we are of the opinion that the clarificatory order is devoid of any reasons whatsoever in holding that those items would not fall within Sub O.T.Appeal No. 1 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.6388 of 2018 & 6390 of 2018 ..21..
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Tata Oil Mills Company Limited vs Union Of India on 13 July, 1984

Similarly, it is well-known that perfumed hair-oil is an item of cosmetic & toilet requisite. This phrase has been the subject-matter of interpretation in two Supreme Court decisions reported in Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and State of Gujarat v. Prakash Trading Co. (26. S.T.C. 339 & 30 S.T.C. 348 respectively). 'Hair-oil', as the expression itself indicates, is used for dressing hair. Its object is not only to keep the hair tidy, promote its growth, check baldness but also to beautify appearance. As such, there can hardly be any controversy that it is squarely covered by the entry 'cosmetics & toilet requisites'."
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dabur India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Taxs And Ors. on 12 January, 1995

4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that in view of decision of apex Court in Sarin Chemical Laboratory's case (supra), assessing officer was justified in rejecting petitioner's claim. The said decision was rendered on the question whether tooth powder is a toilet product. The Court was not concerned with the question whether product was covered by Section 3(b) of Drugs Act.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next