Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Section 14 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 18 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Panama Chemical Works vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 July, 1992
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.
Leukoplast (India) Ltd. vs State Of Goa on 3 February, 1988
Similarly, Para 15 of the Bombay High Court decision, Panaji Bench (Goa), in Leukoplast (India) Ltd. v. State of Goa is also given below:
Abrol Engineering Co. P. Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 18 December, 1995
With regard to the penalty, para 11 from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jaishri Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. CCE , is extracted below: