| First | Prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 2469 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
G. Elangovan vs Director of Medical Education and State of Tamil Nadu
[LexDoc Id : 350350]
|
HC (Madras) |
2008 |
Deepak Bajaj vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 349888]
|
SC |
2008 |
S.S. Watch Industries vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 423515]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2008 |
Vishnu Prakash Joshi vs Radha Pyari
[LexDoc Id : 376111]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2008 |
Somwati K. vs State and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 376024]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2008 |
Felma Industries (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 371725]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2008 |
I.H.A. Sayyed vs BEST Undertaking
[LexDoc Id : 355970]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2008 |
Nino Chaka (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 355788]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2008 |
Endress Hauser Flowtec India (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 355255]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2008 |
Fifth Pillar India vs Department of Revenue, CBEC, Chief Commissioner, CCE and Hyundai Motors India Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 353118]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2008 |
Municipal Council vs Bhartiya Nagar Parishad Kamgar Sangh and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 352944]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2008 |
Binani Cement Ltd., Rajnish Aggarwal, Sanjay Aggarwal, Bimal Kumar Jain, Naresh Jain and Rajesh Jain vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 352580]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2008 |
Cadbury India Ltd. vs CC and CE
Interest-Payment of interest on finalisation of provisional assessment-The issue referred to the larger bench of the tribunal was two fold: (a) whether in case of provisional assessment under central excise rules 2002, in [LexDoc Id : 351529]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2008 |
CC vs Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Ltd.
Transaction values-Changes in transaction value-The assessee imported a ship for the purpose of ship breaking and valued the goods as per Memorandum of Agreement. After having initially valued the i [LexDoc Id : 350282]
|
SC |
2008 |
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and Ors. vs Super Star Grit Udyog
[LexDoc Id : 349830]
|
SC |
2008 |
ACC vs C. Bharani Exports
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)-Condonation of delay-The Commissioner (Appeals) was right in declining to condone the delay of 46 days. Under the proviso to s.128 of the Customs Act 1962, he was empowere [LexDoc Id : 376294]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2008 |
Municipal Council vs Sundha Devi, Sarala Devi, Sampati Devi and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 374807]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2008 |
Badri Ram and Ors. vs Narayan Ram
[LexDoc Id : 373318]
|
HC (Rajasthan) |
2008 |
Tobu Enterprises Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 371960]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2008 |
J.K. Mehta vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 370070]
|
CESTAT (Calcutta) |
2008 |
Karan Polymers (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 369644]
|
CESTAT (Calcutta) |
2008 |
Standard Chartered Bank vs India Fintrade Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 361411]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2008 |
Madhav Industrial Corpn. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 359707]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2008 |
CCE vs Garg Forging and Casting Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 357661]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2008 |
Ram Gopal Polytex Ltd., Welspun India Ltd. and Archilon Syntex (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 355789]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2008 |
| |
| First | Prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last |
| |
