Register free! 
Customs - Judgement
[ 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 ]  

 
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