Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.33 seconds)The Drugs (Control) Act, 1950
Polestar Electronic(P) Ltd vs Addl. Commissioner, Sales Tax Delhi on 20 February, 1978
been placed by the
Sandalwood sebum control, 26
Revenue.
Face Toner prevent acne
vulgaris, also
effective as skin
Puma Ayurvedic Herbal
tonic
(P) Ltd Vs Commr [2006
(3) TMI 141-SC]
8. Arish Clear Helps to cure acne CC/Pg -
Off Gel vulgaris, white 31 It was held that anti-
heads, blackheads, pimple packs, face packs,
papules, pustules, remedy for Facial
nobules, cysts and Blemishes, hair tonic
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Sharma Chemical Works on 30 April, 2003
Therefore, the ratio laid down
in the case of Sharma Chemical Works (supra) is
squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan vs Commissioner Of C. Ex., Patna on 6 January, 2002
13.3. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the
Revenue has cited the decision in the case of Shri
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan v. Commissioner of
C.Ex., Patna [2002 (140) E.L.T. 459 (Tri. - LB.)] to
say that the items in question are to be classified
under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,
1985. In the said case, it was held that 'Dant Manjan
Lal' has to be classified as tooth powder under sub-
Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Densons Pultretaknik vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 15 January, 2003
(ii) It is settled law that classification is a legal
interpretational issue which cannot be equated
with that of mis-statement or mis-declaration.
Reliance in this regard is placed on Northern
Plastic Ltd. Vs CC [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)]
and Densons Pultretanik Vs CCE [2003 (155)
ELT 211 (SC)].
Commnr.,Customs & Cent.Excise ... vs M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd on 23 April, 2015
• Commissioner Of Central Excise, Chennai vs.
Roofit Industries Ltd. [2019 (365) E.L.T. 834 (Tri.