Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 16 central insecticides laboratory Court: authority for advance rulings Page 1 of about 1 results (0.068 seconds)

Sep 07 2006 (TRI)

Technical Concepts Vs. Commissioner Central Excise and

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2006)(204)ELT251AAR

..... excluded from the purview of the heading 38.08 is - (b) preparations covered by more specific headings of the nomenclature, or having subsidiary disinfecting, insecticidal etc., properties, for example: we note from the above that the words "heading 34.01" appear after "disinfectant soaps", indicating that they are to ..... chairman), somnath pal and b.a. agrawal, members for appellant/petitioner/plaintiff: tarun gulati and tushar jaswal, advs.central excise act, 1944 - section 23c; central excise tariff act, 1985; medicinal and toilet preparation (excise duties) act, 1955 - section 2 metropol india pvt. ltd. v. cce, delhi 2003 (151) e.l.t. 460 (tri-del.); baidyanath ayurved ..... on first establishing its exact and correct identity and then looking for the proper tariff heading/item etc. aided by, wherever called for, the section/chapter/explanatory notes, the general rules for interpretation of the tariff schedule, the technical/scientific information and the like. therefore, the fact that a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 2005 (TRI)

Technical Concepts Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Authority for Advance Rulings

Reported in : (2005)(189)ELT15AAR

..... and b.a. agrawal, members central excise act, 1944 - section 23c; central excise tariff act, 1985; medicinal and toilet preparation (excise duties) act, 1955 - section 2; town police clauses act 1847; finance act, 1894 - section 8(4); person act, 1837; income tax act, 1952; punjab general sales tax act; sunday observance act, 1977; metropolitan building act, 1855; madras general sales tax act, 1959; andhra pradesh general sales tax act, 1957; andhra pradesh general sales tax ..... its order dated 7.4.2000 held that those goods were primarily used as air purifier although they might incidentally act as a moth repellant and were for continuous use, unlike insecticides, would be classifiable under sub-heading 3307.49 of the tariff act. against that order the hon'ble supreme court dismissed civil appeal no. 4966 of 2000 on 25.9.2000 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //