| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 103 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
UOI and Ors. vs Associated Container Terminal Ltd.
Refund of custom duty-Sections 61, 63, 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. Removal of goods from warehouse-Appellant challenged order wherein he was directed to refund of duty together with interest @12% per annum. Whether calculation of custom duty would b [LexDoc Id : 560889]
|
SC |
2020 |
Pr. Addl. Director General Directorate of Revenue vs C, CE and ST Settlement Commission, Pr. Bench and Ors.
Maintainability of settlement application-Sections 123, 127C of the Customs Act, 1962. Jurisdiction of settlement Commission-Whether, on facts and circumstances Settlement Commission has justified in entertaining application filed under Section 127C of Act. Held, looking to [LexDoc Id : 561400]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2020 |
Sushil Kumar Agarwal vs CCE
Evasion of custom duty-Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. Undervaluation of goods-Whether, order of seizure, demand of differential duty, fine and penalty on M/s. Sunland on ground of undervaluation can be sustained. Held, valuation [LexDoc Id : 560733]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2020 |
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs CC
Applicability of notification-Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. Relevant effective date-Whether Notification No. 120/2003 dated 01.08.2003 is effective from date of publication i.e. 01.08.2003 as proposed by revenue or from date of offer [LexDoc Id : 560687]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2020 |
Harsh Commodities (P) Ltd. vs CC
Levy of anti dumping duty-Rule 21 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. Refund of duty-Whether, on facts and circumstances Rule 21 (1) is not applicable and higher duty leviable on assessee. Held, plain reading of rule 21(1) clear that i [LexDoc Id : 560691]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2020 |
Anant B. Timbadiaand Co. vs CCE
Rejection of refund of pre-deposited amount-Payment of amount-Whether, refund of Rs. 20 lacs paid by Appellant during course of investigation was justified. Held, there is big difference between meaning of words [LexDoc Id : 560697]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2020 |
Compuage Infocom Ltd. vs Pr. CC
Payment of duty-Suppression of facts-Respondents are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 87. During the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 M/s DASL received duty pai [LexDoc Id : 560695]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2020 |
M C Punjwani vs CC
Compounding of offence-Section 137(3) of Customs Act, 1962. Applicability of circular-Whether, application filed by Appellant for compounding of offence under Section 137(3) of Act was rightly dismissed. Held, purpose of compounding of [LexDoc Id : 560693]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2020 |
Lieutenant Colonel Ganesan S. (Retd.) vs CC
Levy of penalty-Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Fraud on revenue-Whether, levy of penalty under section 112 (a) of Act was justified. Held, Revenue has fastened appellant with penalty based on statements of co-accus [LexDoc Id : 560686]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2020 |
Lykis Ltd. vs C.C
[LexDoc Id : 560436]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2020 |
Prince Spintex (P) Ltd. vs UOI
Rejection of refund of custom duty-Customs Act, 1962. Section 3 (7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Section 5 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Section 7 (2) of Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Charging of IGST-Whether it was permissible for respondents to levy additional duty under section 3 of Customs Tariff Act by way of integrated tax and goods and servic [LexDoc Id : 561159]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2020 |
Ravi Sadanand and Karupiah @ Manoharan vs CC
Imposition of Penalty-Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Confiscation of capital goods.-Appellants engaged in manufacture of various models of motor vehicles. They had entered into a Manufacturing Licensing Agreement with NML. Whether, pe [LexDoc Id : 560670]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2020 |
Tata Steel Ltd. and another vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 560617]
|
HC (Orissa) |
2020 |
Ravi Sadanand and Karupiah (a) Manoharan,vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 560442]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2020 |
Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. vs Panna Mahesh Chandra Dave and Anr.
Demolition of structure-Grant of relief to tenant-Respondents challenged demolition of superstructures put up by them on ground that Chawl cannot be demolished or removed without providing permanent a [LexDoc Id : 565850]
|
SC |
2020 |
Granules India Ltd. vs UOI and Ors.
Import duty-Clearance of consignment-Appellant, during the year 1993 imported 96 tons of the chemical "Acetic Anhydride" under three Bills of Entry through the Inland Water Container Depo [LexDoc Id : 560969]
|
SC |
2020 |
Mohit Minerals (P) Ltd. vs UOI and Ors.
Validity of notification-Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Power of authority-Whether, impugned notifications are contrary to provisions of Article 265 of Constitution of India. Held, in fiscal matter it is not proper to hold th [LexDoc Id : 560624]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2020 |
A.V. Agro Products Ltd. and Ors. vs CC, CE and CGST
[LexDoc Id : 576643]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2020 |
CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. vs Department of Trade and Taxes and Ors.
Payment of duty-Suppression of facts-Respondents are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 87. During the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 M/s DASL received duty pai [LexDoc Id : 559919]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2020 |
Rajhans Impex (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 559915]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2020 |
Jagdamba Tin Suppliers vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 559163]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2020 |
UOI vs Jasmine Jayantilal Thadeshwar and Ors.
Grant of rebate-Excisable inputs-Refusal to grant rebate on the whole of duty paid on excisable inputs and taxable input services for providing export of services to the appellant by [LexDoc Id : 559912]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2020 |
UOI vs Iqbal Kasam Memon and Ors.
Cenvat Credit-Rule 2(l) and Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Discharging service tax liability.-Appellant are engaged in construction of residential complexes mainly in Mumbai and also in Hyderabad. They are discharging service tax liability and [LexDoc Id : 559911]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2020 |
Badri Narayan Sharma vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 559156]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2020 |
CC vs Medreich Sterilab Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 560619]
|
HC (Madras) |
2020 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next | Last |
| |
