| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 2699 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Elgi Equipments Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 407481]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
CCE vs USV Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 407259]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2010 |
CCE vs GKN Sinter Metals Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 407099]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2010 |
CCE vs G.K.N. Sinter Metals Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 405381]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2010 |
CCE vs U.S.V. Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 405075]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2010 |
Lal Industries vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 404032]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
CCE and C vs Bilag Industries (P) Ltd.
Invocation of extended period of limitation: Suppression of material fact-Legal position as regards maintenance of separate records and entitlement to credit unclear at relevant time, Assessee under bona fide belief, Case of non-suppression made out, Appeal dismissed-The adjudicating authority had recorded specific findings as regards suppression, based on which extended period of limitation was invoked. However, t [LexDoc Id : 403951]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2010 |
Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 403849]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 402738]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2010 |
Modulus Prefab Solutions vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 400301]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2010 |
CCE vs Bajaj Travels Ltd.
Travel agent service: Demand of service tax and imposition of penalty-Quantum of penalty to be restricted to 25 percent if payment made before adjudication-The assessee was a travel agent and its service was taxable service exigible to service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act 1994. Show cause n [LexDoc Id : 400297]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2010 |
CCE vs AVS Brake Lining (P) Ltd.
Dismissal of appeals by tribunal: Appeals supported by undated review order-Undated review order not disclosing why order-in-appeal found to be not legal and proper, Amount of penalty involved only Rs.10000, No proposal to levy interest in show cause notice, No quantification of amount in order, Appeal dismissed-The tribunal had dismissed the appeals as not maintainable on the grounds that the appeals were supported by an undated review order, which did not di [LexDoc Id : 400296]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2010 |
CCE vs Alpha Drugs India Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 400294]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2010 |
Mittal Clothing Co., In re
[LexDoc Id : 432683]
|
GOI |
2010 |
Inter Globe Services, In re
[LexDoc Id : 422248]
|
GOI |
2010 |
CCE vs Jainsons Industries
[LexDoc Id : 421176]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Maneesh Exports (EOU), In re
[LexDoc Id : 420684]
|
GOI |
2010 |
Dagger Forst Tools Ltd., In re
[LexDoc Id : 419501]
|
GOI |
2010 |
Tamilnadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 409216]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
L and T Komatsu Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 405636]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Praveen Electrical Works vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 405573]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
JSW Steel Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 405572]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 401007]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Jetlite India Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 400481]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
CCE vs Satia Papers Mills Ltd. and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 400209]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2010 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
