First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last |
Documents Found: 191 |
Title |
Forum |
Year |
CC vs Neo Copier Unit (P) Ltd. and Third Eye Technologies
[LexDoc Id : 484321]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Y.R. Leathers vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484336]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Chakiat Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Caravel Shipping Services (P) Ltd., V.S. Krishnan, NYK Line India Ltd. and Bengal Tiger Line India (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs
[LexDoc Id : 484326]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Shantilal J. Jain vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484314]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
T.V. Shanmugam and Sanco Trans Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484330]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Mohamed Farook vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484323]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
T.W. Exports (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484057]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2015 |
Vanick Oils and Fats (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484060]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2015 |
CC vs Pioneer Power Corpn. Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 484049]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
N. Sainathan vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 484047]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Airport Authority of India vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 489219]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. vs CC and Anr.
Reduction of CVD on reverse osmosis membrane to six percent: Duty mistakenly paid at 10 percent-Representations for reassessment not responded to, Respondents directed to dispose of representations-The petitioner manufactured reverse osmosis water purifier, for households. During imports counter veiling duty (CVD) was paid albeit mistakenly at th [LexDoc Id : 483502]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2015 |
Zenithfibers Ltd. vs CCE and Service Tax
[LexDoc Id : 483647]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
Vardhman Life Sciences (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 483644]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Jalandhar Iron and Steel Merchants Association vs State of Punjab and Ors.
Input tax credit: Challenge to rule 21(8) of Punjab Value Added Tax Rules 2005-No statutory provision enabling State to notify rule 21(8) w.e.f. 21 January 2014, Rule 21(8) held applicable w.e.f. 01 April 2014-The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari declaring rule 21(8) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules 2005, which was notified on 21 [LexDoc Id : 483844]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2015 |
Vardhman Acrylics Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 483643]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
CC vs Mercury Marine Industries (P) Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 483616]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
Peak Scientific instruments India (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 483622]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2015 |
Amulya Enterprises vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 483601]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2015 |
Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs CC
Provisional assessment of duty: Expressions 'deems it necessary', 'reason to believe', etc.-Subjective satisfaction of concerned officer-The expression 'deems it necessary' appearing in s.18 of the Customs Act 1962 obviously meant that the proper officer should have good reason to subje [LexDoc Id : 482354]
|
SC |
2015 |
Century Laminating Co. Ltd. and Merino Panel Products Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 483608]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
APIS India Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 483603]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2015 |
Nestle India Ltd. vs Dty. CCT and 1
[LexDoc Id : 485911]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2015 |
Enercon India Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 482505]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
German Garden Ltd. vs CCE
Non-fulfilment of conditions of exemption notifications-Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Recovery of duty along with penalty and interest-The appellants/100% EOU were issued LOP by the Development Commissioner for production and export of roses and other kinds of flowers. In terms of LOP [LexDoc Id : 482508]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2015 |
|
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last |
|