| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 872 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
HPCL vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 423636]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
Binjusaria Metal Box Co. Ltd. vs CC and CE
[LexDoc Id : 423556]
|
CESTAT (Bangalore) |
2011 |
Stonex International vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 421581]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Maharashtra Medical Foundation Joshi Hospital vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 421573]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Atlantic Shipping (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 430494]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2011 |
Om Prakash vs UOI
[LexDoc Id : 430430]
|
SC |
2011 |
Blossom Grocery and Food India (P) Ltd. and Ors. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 419172]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Shiva Taxfabs Ltd. and Ors. vs UOI and Ors.
Challenge to Circular classifying polyester staple fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles: Contentions that hands of authorities bound and tied because of Circular and that entire adjudication process only a formality-Merit in contentions, Directions issued to revenue to consider contentions without being influenced or treating the Circular as binding-The petitioners had prayed for quashing of Circular No. 929-19-2010-CX dated 29 June 2010 classifying polyester staple fibre manufactured out of PET s [LexDoc Id : 417696]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2011 |
Delta Power Solutions India (P) Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 417581]
|
AAR |
2011 |
Om Prakash Choith Nanikram Harchandani vs UOI
Non-cognisable offences: Question whether all non-cognisable offences under Central Excise Act 1944 and Customs Act 1962 were bailable offences-Provisions under both Act on the issue whether offences thereunder were bailable not only similar but also in pari materia-The Supreme Court, on the question whether all non-cognisable offences under the Central Excise Act 1944 and Customs Act 1962 were bailable offences, [LexDoc Id : 417561]
|
SC |
2011 |
CC vs Floor Decor
[LexDoc Id : 423906]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2011 |
Salma Shakil and Atlantic Logistic vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 422307]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Petronet L.N.G. Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 420858]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2011 |
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs CCE
[LexDoc Id : 420814]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2011 |
Siddharth Overseas vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 420751]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
Shree Cement Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 440009]
|
CESTAT (Ahmedabad) |
2011 |
CCE vs Salora International Ltd.
[LexDoc Id : 434160]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
Helvoet Rubber and Plastics Tech. India (P) Ltd. vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 426998]
|
CESTAT (Mumbai) |
2011 |
CCE vs J.S. Gupta and Sons
[LexDoc Id : 421063]
|
CESTAT (Delhi) |
2011 |
CCE vs Exportec India Exports Royal Trading Co., Krishna Business Home, Amar Sales Corpn. and Amar Sales Corpn.
[LexDoc Id : 418528]
|
HC (Punjab and Haryana) |
2011 |
CC vs A. Prabhakar, P. Selvakumar and A.M. Tharun Kumar
[LexDoc Id : 420926]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2011 |
CC vs N.V. Georgekutty
Benefits of DEPB Scheme: Benefits not extendible to exports of floor mats, door mats etc.-Products manufactured out of compound rubber separately included in public notice, Floor mats and doormats not so included, Amendment to public notice unnecessary for denying DEPB benefit to such products-A perusal of Appendix 28A to the EXIM Policy showed that automobile tyres of various types had been included as Item Nos. 534 and 535, bicycle tubes a [LexDoc Id : 435843]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2011 |
CC vs Merchant Impex
[LexDoc Id : 426935]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
Penshibao Wang (P) Ltd. and Rajwant Singh vs CC
[LexDoc Id : 423669]
|
CESTAT (Chennai) |
2011 |
CC vs Rasi Offset Printers
Confiscation and imposition of penalty: Import of second hand photocopier machine-Category referred to in paragraph 2.17 not applicable to second hand copier, Order setting aside confiscation and penalty upheld-The assessee had imported used photocopier or photocopying assembly separately under different bills. The original adjudicating authority passed an or [LexDoc Id : 420737]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2011 |
| |
| First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Next | Last |
| |
