Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs Vicco Laboratories on 7 December, 2004
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee placing reliance in the decision in the matter of CCE, Pune vs. Ram Krishna Vidyut reported in 2000 (125) ELT 748 (Tribunal), CCE, Calcutta vs. Sharma Chemical Works reported in 2003 (154) ELT 328 (SC), CCE, Nagpur vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in 2005 (179) ELT 17 (SC), Pankajakasthuri Herbals India (P) Ltd., vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram reported in 2006 (194) ELT 90 (Tri., Bang.
M/S. Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur on 8 March, 2006
It is settled law that in such cases the twin test approved by the Apex Court in Collector vs. Richardson Hindustan Limited reported in 1989 (42) ELT A100 = 2004 (9) SCC 156 and further reiterated by the Apex Court in Puma Ayurvedic Herbal Pvt. Ltd., vs. Commissioner reported in 2006 (196) ELT 3 (SC) as well as in the recent decision in CCE, Nagpur vs. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., reported in 2009 (237) ELT 225 (SC) has to be applied and followed. The twin test as approved by the Apex Court reads thus:-
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Sharma Chemical Works on 30 April, 2003
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee placing reliance in the decision in the matter of CCE, Pune vs. Ram Krishna Vidyut reported in 2000 (125) ELT 748 (Tribunal), CCE, Calcutta vs. Sharma Chemical Works reported in 2003 (154) ELT 328 (SC), CCE, Nagpur vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in 2005 (179) ELT 17 (SC), Pankajakasthuri Herbals India (P) Ltd., vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram reported in 2006 (194) ELT 90 (Tri., Bang.
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Cce vs Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. on 17 March, 2004
11. The Apex Court in Shree Vaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., (supra) has clearly held that-
Cce vs Medi Herbs And R.K. Herbals Pvt. Ltd. on 12 July, 2006
4. Learned DR referring to the said tariff entries and the decisions of the Tribunal in CCE, Mumbai vs. Quality Herbal Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2003 (153) ELT 552 (Tri.-Mumbai), and B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs. CCE, Vadodara reported in 1995 (77) ELT 485 (SC) submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in interfering with the order passed by the adjudicating authority and holding the product to be Ayurvedic medicaments inspite of evidence available on record disproving the said claim of the assessee. According to the learned DR materials on record clearly disclose that the products were classifiable under entry No. 3305.10 and hence the products are not Ayurvedic medicines.
Arshik Herbal Remedies (India) And ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 13 February, 2004
), Herbal Products vs. CCE, Calicut reported in 2002 (146) ELT 126 (Tri. Bang.)
Pankajakasthuri Herbals India (P) Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 17 August, 2005
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee placing reliance in the decision in the matter of CCE, Pune vs. Ram Krishna Vidyut reported in 2000 (125) ELT 748 (Tribunal), CCE, Calcutta vs. Sharma Chemical Works reported in 2003 (154) ELT 328 (SC), CCE, Nagpur vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in 2005 (179) ELT 17 (SC), Pankajakasthuri Herbals India (P) Ltd., vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram reported in 2006 (194) ELT 90 (Tri., Bang.