Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA AND ANR. versus M/S. FUNSKOOL (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR.

Decided
12 November 2009
Judges listed
S.H. KAPADIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 15 S.C.R. 887 · 2009 INSC 1232

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This batch of civil appeals is filed by the Department against the decision of CESTAT dated 23.1.04 in Final Order Nos. 103 to 105 of 2004. These are virtually cross · appeals to civil appeals filed by the assessee bearing Civil · Appeal Nos.4309-4311 of 2008 - Mis. Pleasantime Products, & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, in which we have delivered the judgment today. The question in both sets ' of civil appeals, however, is common as far as the game "Scrabble/Upwards" is concerned.

pp. 887–888, margin F

2

In thls batch of civil appeals filed by the Department we are concerned with classification of 12 items falling within the declaration filed by Mis. Funskoo/ (India) Ltd. "'

p. 888, margin A

3

We make it clear 'that the following three items are classifiable under Heading 95.04ofthe Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 ("CET A"; for short). They are as follows: (i) Snake and Ladder. . (ii) Monopoly . (iii) Scrabble/Upwards (in terms of our judgment delivered today in M/s. Pleasantime Products (supra)

p. 888, margin B

4

In our judgment in Mis. Pleasantime Products (supra), we .have broadly indicated the tests to distinguish toys, puzzles and games in the context of Chapter 95 ofthe CET A. The tests applied by the Department, namely, age of the player, is not correct as indicated in our judgment in M/s. Pleasantime Products (supra). Therefore, we remit this case to the Tribur.a! for de novo consideration in accordance with law. It is made clear · that the Tribunal will decide the controversy only with regard to nine out of 12 ·items. We once again declare that "Scrabble/ Upwards" is a game falling under Heading 95.04 of CET A.

p. 888, margin D

5

Accordingly, civil appeals filed by the Department are allowed with no order as to costs. 8.B.B. Appeals allowed.

p. 888, margin F