Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (10) TMI 338 - SUPREME COURT
Whether “dhoop” or “dhoop-batti” fell within the description of “perfume” thereunder?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. We are in no doubt whatever that the word “perfumery” in the said entry No. 16 draws colour from the words “cosmetics” and “toilet goods” therein and that, so read, the word “perfumery” in the said entry No. 16 can only refer to such articles of perfumery as are used, as cosmetics and toilet goods are, upon the person. The word “perfumery” in the context in which it is used has, therefore, no application to “dhoop” and “agarbatti”