| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 2699 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
CCE vs Arpit Advertising
[LexDoc Id : 404037]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Tijiya Engg. (P) Ltd. vs ACCE
Direction to pre-deposit: Non-consideration of undue hardship-Undue hardship not pleaded, Conclusion that no case made out that pre-deposit would cause undue hardship justified, Grant of liberty to file review application on applicability of amended rule 6 -The petitioner had challenged the order of CCE(A) directing to deposit a sum along with interest as demanded on the ground that the case of undue hard [LexDoc Id : 403947]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2010 |
Doshion Ltd., Ashit D. Doshi and Pankajbhai Mehta vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 403782]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2010 |
CCE vs Anabond Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 403569]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
CCE vs Indrad Auto Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 401823]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
M.M. Forgings Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 401820]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
Shree Krishna Paper Mills and Indus. Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 421177]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Industrial Enterprises vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 414572]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Calypso Foods (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 407781]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Reva Electric Car Co. (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 406897]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Orchid Designs (P) Ltd., R. Ramesh and R. Srinivasan vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 406895]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
Lloyd Insulations India Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 406891]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 406336]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Koya and Co. Construction (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 406105]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Taher Ali Industries and Projects (P) Ltd. vs CC and CE
[LexDoc Id : 405916]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Kripa Fabs (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 405116]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2010 |
CCE vs Brightman Industries
Condonation of delay: Delay of 855 days in filing appeal attributed to departmental officers and lawyers-Petition referring to letter written to department and lawyer, No document giving instructions and informing lawyer annexed, Explanation for delay difficult to accept, Tax effect involved meagre, Application dismissed-In an application for condonation of delay of 855 days in filing the instant reference application, the reason for delay was sought to be attributed t [LexDoc Id : 403949]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2010 |
CCE and Service Tax vs Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
Imposition of penalty: Furnace oil removed from one unit to another under warehousing procedure-No objection raised by department on such removal, Re-warehousing certificates duly received from place of removal, No action for non-warehousing initiated by department, Setting aside of penalty by tribunal upheld-The respondent was under a bona fide belief that it could move the furnace oil in Manali unit duty-free under the warehousing procedure to Nagapattina [LexDoc Id : 421753]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2010 |
Inventaa Chemicals Ltd. vs CCE and Service Tax
[LexDoc Id : 421382]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
Ashoka Trading Co. vs CIT
[LexDoc Id : 418803]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2010 |
S.V.R. Electricals (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 409674]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2010 |
CCE vs Magsons Exports
[LexDoc Id : 409571]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
CCE vs Jyoti Apparels
[LexDoc Id : 409529]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 409528]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 408610]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2010 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
