citedby: 728947

M/S. Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt ... vs C.C.E. And St, Ahmedabad - Iii on 14 July, 2025

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three-Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The 7 (2006) 7 SCC 431 19 Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) “As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification.”

Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Anil Singh Verma vs Noida on 14 January, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not Service Tax Appeal No.70682 of 2025 26 allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Srj Edu Services Pvt Ltd vs Cgst Ghaziabad on 15 January, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the Service Tax Appeal No.70597 of 2025 26 right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Moksh Innovations Incorporation vs Cgst Lucknow on 15 January, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Krishan Pal Singh vs Cgst Kanpur on 15 January, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not Service Tax Appeal No.70835 of 2025 26 allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Protectwell Security Services vs Noida on 30 January, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that Service Tax Appeal No.70812 of 2025 27 concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Mvm Business Services vs Noida on 20 February, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the Service Tax Appeal No.70741 of 2025 27 right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs Cgst & Ce Agra on 20 February, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Subodh Kumar Yadav vs Noida on 25 February, 2026

In Primella Sanitary Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE [(2005) 10 SCC 644 : (2005) 184 ELT 117] a three- Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with a case where a concession was made by a counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. The Court opined that although the item was put under the right classification list but they had not been permitted to take a different stand stating: (SCC p. 648, para 13) "As the matter of classification has proceeded on a matter of concession of facts we do not allow the appellants to withdraw from that concession. They are now not permitted to argue on the question of classification."

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.P. Sanghvi And Swiss Apparels vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 5 July, 2005

3. (a) Keeping in mind the settled law on assignment of Trade Mark entitled to benefit, as held by catena of decisions of this Tribunal and the Supreme Court's decisions relied upon by the Ld Advocate viz para 3 of Primela Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2001 (131) ELT 657 (upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005 (184) ELT 125 (SC) and also the decision in case of B.P. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (153) ELT 14 (SC) para 12 & 14, we find no reason to deny the benefit of the assignment deed on grounds of facade and non registration as being made out.

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results