Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S. Shivraj Tobacco Co. Pvt.Ltd on 5 February, 2009 cites

Union Of India And Ors vs Pesticides Manufacturing & ... on 23 October, 2002

It is pleaded before me on behalf of the appellants that it is established from the un-controverted authentic literature and trade opinions that except for different varieties of perfumes and menthol which evaporate and do not add their weight and sweetening materials used for flavour and taste, all the products predominantly contain various parts of plants. It is also pleaded before me that the products come in the description of preparation which word has been interpreted in their favour by the Supreme Court in U.O.I. Vs. Pesticides Mfg. & Formulation Association of India reported at 2002 (146) ELT 19 and order of the Tribunal in C.C. Ex Sukhjit Starch & Chemical Ltd. reported at 194 (72) ELT 753 & in C.C.Ex Vs. Mazda Industrial Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2000 (124) ELT 475, which are also cited in para B-1 of the defence brief. I have also examined legality of classifying these products on sub-heading no.2107.91 and later in sub-heading no.2108.99. I agree with the submission of the appellants that Chapter 20 & Sub-heading No.2001.10 is a specific entry for Preparation of vegetables; fruits, nuts or other parts of plants and classification in this sub-heading is not excluded if they are not vegetables and fruits in the common parlance provided they are prepared from parts of plants. On the other hand Heading 21.07 and later Heading Nod.21.08 is a residual entry described as Edible Preparations not elsewhere specified.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 16 - R Pal - Full Document

Commissioner Of C. Ex., Nagpur vs Abhideep Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. on 21 February, 2002

It is pleaded before me on behalf of the appellants that it is established from the un-controverted authentic literature and trade opinions that except for different varieties of perfumes and menthol which evaporate and do not add their weight and sweetening materials used for flavour and taste, all the products predominantly contain various parts of plants. It is also pleaded before me that the products come in the description of preparation which word has been interpreted in their favour by the Supreme Court in U.O.I. Vs. Pesticides Mfg. & Formulation Association of India reported at 2002 (146) ELT 19 and order of the Tribunal in C.C. Ex Sukhjit Starch & Chemical Ltd. reported at 194 (72) ELT 753 & in C.C.Ex Vs. Mazda Industrial Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2000 (124) ELT 475, which are also cited in para B-1 of the defence brief. I have also examined legality of classifying these products on sub-heading no.2107.91 and later in sub-heading no.2108.99. I agree with the submission of the appellants that Chapter 20 & Sub-heading No.2001.10 is a specific entry for Preparation of vegetables; fruits, nuts or other parts of plants and classification in this sub-heading is not excluded if they are not vegetables and fruits in the common parlance provided they are prepared from parts of plants. On the other hand Heading 21.07 and later Heading Nod.21.08 is a residual entry described as Edible Preparations not elsewhere specified.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

George John (Associated Rubber Works) vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 16 February, 1993

I also agree that according to Rule 3 of Interpretation Rule & judgements of the Supreme Court in Speed Work Rubber Co. Vs. C.C.Ex and Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. reported at 2002 (143) ELT 78 & 1983 (13) ELT 1566 respectively that for the purpose of classification in the tariff schedule a specific entry will prevail over general or residual entry.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1