Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.79 seconds)Manisha Pharma Plasto Pvt. Ltd.(M/S) vs Union Of India on 20 May, 1999
14. In the present case, this evidence is lacking. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manisha Pharma Plasto Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that the produce is not used as daily use talcom powder. It is a product normally used for specific purpose for treating prickly heat and as soon as the ailment is cured the use of the product is discontinued. In the present case as mentioned above the 'Dant Manjan Lal' is for daily use and not as a medical prescription for treatment of any disease.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Bajaj Tempo Limited And Ors. on 29 July, 1997
15. The reliance of Deptt. instruction is also not helpful to the appellants as the instructions for classification of the product under Chapter 30 were withdrawn on 10-9-97 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. reported in [1997 (94) E.L.T. 285] held that the Tribunal is not bound by the such instructions.
Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Fenoplast Ltd. on 5 November, 1999
4. The contention of the appellants is that in respect of notification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'Dant Manjan Lal' is not an ayurvedic medicine, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 62/78. Their, further, contention is that with the introduction of new Central Excise Tariff, 1985, Chapter 30 covers pharmaceutical drugs including ayurveda, unani, siddha, homoeo or bio-chemic systems. This tariff heading was, further amended in the year 1996 and new sub-heading 3003.31 was inserted which covers medicaments manufactured exclusively in accordance with 'the formulae described in the authoritative book specified in first schedule to Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sold under the name specified in such book or Pharmacopoeia. Their, further, submission is that there is specific tariff entry in respect of the goods, in question, hence the classification of the goods is to be decided in view of the specific entry made in the tariff and in absence of any definition being given in the tariff, meaning of term in common parlance or commercial parlance is to be adopted. For this, the ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
C.C.E. v. Fenoplast (P) Ltd. reported in [1994 (72) E.L.T. 513) and in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in [1998 (101) E.L.T. 561].
Bakelite Hylam Ltd. vs Cce on 18 April, 2000
4. The contention of the appellants is that in respect of notification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'Dant Manjan Lal' is not an ayurvedic medicine, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 62/78. Their, further, contention is that with the introduction of new Central Excise Tariff, 1985, Chapter 30 covers pharmaceutical drugs including ayurveda, unani, siddha, homoeo or bio-chemic systems. This tariff heading was, further amended in the year 1996 and new sub-heading 3003.31 was inserted which covers medicaments manufactured exclusively in accordance with 'the formulae described in the authoritative book specified in first schedule to Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sold under the name specified in such book or Pharmacopoeia. Their, further, submission is that there is specific tariff entry in respect of the goods, in question, hence the classification of the goods is to be decided in view of the specific entry made in the tariff and in absence of any definition being given in the tariff, meaning of term in common parlance or commercial parlance is to be adopted. For this, the ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
C.C.E. v. Fenoplast (P) Ltd. reported in [1994 (72) E.L.T. 513) and in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in [1998 (101) E.L.T. 561].
M/S. La Chem Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 27 March, 2001
In case of B.P.L. Pharmaceutical (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 of the judgment held as under :
1