| First | Prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 862 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
Serene Fashions and Ors. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 415471]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
CC vs Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 414982]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
CC vs Bestway Enterprises (P) Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 419105]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Varun Overseas vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 418471]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Textoplast Industries and Anr. vs Addl. CC
Filing of bill of entry for home consumption by importer of goods: Partnership firm holding itself out or reflected in documents of title to be owner and lodging bill of entry for home consumption-Such partnership firm under obligation to comply with obligations imposed by Customs Act 1962-A bill of entry for home consumption had to be filed under s.46 of the Customs Act 1962 by the importer of goods. The expression ‘importer’ was define [LexDoc Id : 413424]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Gammon India Ltd. vs CC
Entitlement to exemption: Customs Notification No. 17 dated 01 March 2001-Failure to fulfil requisite requirement of condition in Notification, Appellant not entitled to benefit of exemption-The Supreme Court, on the question whether import of machine by the appellant could be considered to be an import by a person who had been awarded a c [LexDoc Id : 412394]
|
SC |
2011 |
Chandna Impex (P) Ltd. vs CC
Appeal to Supreme Court: Dismissal of appeal under s.130 by high court-Jurisdiction of DRI to issue show cause notice specifically questioned and required to be examined afresh, Matter remanded-The high court, by the impugned order, had dismissed the appellant’s appeal under s.130 of the Customs Act 1962 on the ground that no substantial ques [LexDoc Id : 412392]
|
SC |
2011 |
R.K. Jain vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 428564]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Dilip Sujan vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 415872]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Keihin Fie (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 415376]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Bhole Baba Dairy Industries Ltd. vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 412844]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
R.V. Corpn., In re
[LexDoc Id : 430602]
|
GOI |
2011 |
Sree Enterprises vs CC
Denial of exemption and levy of customs duty, interest and penalty by DRI: Issue as to whether imported goods having any broad nexus as inputs and capital goods-No jurisdiction on DRI to adjudicate and issue the order impugned before tribunal, Impugned orders set aside, Matter remitted-The petitioner was availing the benefit under the Target Plus Scheme introduced by the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 to promote exports. The Directorat [LexDoc Id : 422973]
|
HC (Andhra Pradesh) |
2011 |
Varun Overseas vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 415801]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Rajmal Lakhichand and Anr. vs CCE and C
Confiscation of goods: Seized silver-Two different laws applicable to seizure, No question of getting the scope of reference expanded-During a search at the premises of the appellants, DRI seized silver weighing 1913.256 kgs and issued show cause notices to the appellants. The adjudi [LexDoc Id : 412310]
|
SC |
2011 |
3M India Ltd., In re
[LexDoc Id : 430601]
|
GOI |
2011 |
Eastern Silk Industries Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 420446]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
Munni Lal Mehra and Ors. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 418857]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
CCE vs Kiran Syntex
[LexDoc Id : 415231]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2011 |
Ishwarlal Narbheram Soni vs CC
Appeal against confiscation of gold bars and imposition of penalty: Purchase of gold bars knowing the fact that same were smuggled gold-Facts established on basis of documentary evidence, Appeal dismissed-In an appeal under s.130 of the Customs Act 1962, the appellant had challenged the order directing the confiscation of gold bars and also imposing pen [LexDoc Id : 413718]
|
HC (Gujarat) |
2011 |
Win Information Tech. Co. Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 412592]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2011 |
Balaji Impex vs UOI and Ors.
Assessment orders: Non-compliance of principles of natural justice-Order passed without complying with the principles of natural justice invalid, Impugned orders set aside, Direction to pass fresh orders finalising assessments-The petitioners were aggrieved by the communication issued to them by the Asst. CC by which they had been informed that the Dy. CC, who was nominated [LexDoc Id : 412359]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
Marathon Traexim Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 421643]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
Central Road Research Institute vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 416752]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
UOI vs K. Amishkumar Trading (P) Ltd.
Settlement application: Conditions prescribed by proviso to s.127(1)-Threshold bar to making of application in absence of compliance of conditions-The conditions prescribed by the proviso to s.127(1) of the Customs Act 1962 constituted a jurisdictional requirement. In the absence of compliance, t [LexDoc Id : 420956]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2011 |
| |
| First | Prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last |
| |
