Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)
Akarui Solution Llp vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva - V on 5 August, 2024 cites

C.C.E., Bhubaneswar-1 vs M/S. Champdany Industries Ltd on 8 September, 2009

3. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the impugned goods, having been imported for supply to hospitals and medical establishments and deployed in conjunction with equipment to which patients would be connected for display of medical parameters, were not ordinary monitors. It was also submitted that recourse to a residuary heading even as the impugned goods were so obviously connected with medical diagnosis was not in accordance with the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I v. Champdany Industries Ltd [2009 (241) ELT 481 (SC) which, relying upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Simplex Mills Co Ltd [(2005) 3 SCC 51], held that section notes and chapter notes have relevance ahead of the rules which should be resorted on only upon upon no clear picture emerging therewith.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Comm.Of C.Ex., Nagpur vs M/S.Simplex Mills Co.Ltd on 1 March, 2005

3. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the impugned goods, having been imported for supply to hospitals and medical establishments and deployed in conjunction with equipment to which patients would be connected for display of medical parameters, were not ordinary monitors. It was also submitted that recourse to a residuary heading even as the impugned goods were so obviously connected with medical diagnosis was not in accordance with the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I v. Champdany Industries Ltd [2009 (241) ELT 481 (SC) which, relying upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Simplex Mills Co Ltd [(2005) 3 SCC 51], held that section notes and chapter notes have relevance ahead of the rules which should be resorted on only upon upon no clear picture emerging therewith.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - R Pal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P vs M/S A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd on 6 September, 2016

He also relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Commercial Tax, UP v. A R Thermosets (Pvt) Ltd [2016 (339) ELT 500 (SC)] holding that common parlance test is of relevance in a classification dispute and C/85459 & 86130/2022 5 upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd [2012 (277) ELT 299 (SC)] on the importance of common parlance and holding residual entry does not prevail until after specific descriptions are eliminated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 10 - D Misra - Full Document

Commnr. Of Central Excise vs M/S. Wockhardt Life Science Ltd on 22 February, 2012

He also relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Commercial Tax, UP v. A R Thermosets (Pvt) Ltd [2016 (339) ELT 500 (SC)] holding that common parlance test is of relevance in a classification dispute and C/85459 & 86130/2022 5 upon the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd [2012 (277) ELT 299 (SC)] on the importance of common parlance and holding residual entry does not prevail until after specific descriptions are eliminated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Shivani Scientific Industries P Ltd vs Cc (Acc &Amp; Import) Mumbai on 14 December, 2018

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Shivani Scientific Industries (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai [2019 (365) ELT 824 (Tri.-Mumbai)] holding that multiple usage would not deny coverage of microscope as surgical instrument and of the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Delhi - III v. Bausch and Lomb Eyecare India Pvt Ltd [2017 (355) ELT 556 (Tr.-Del.)] that a medical device is one that is used by the medical fraternity.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next