Advanced Search Results

Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 2 and 3; Finance Act, 1981 - Sections 47; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 2(11), 2(12), 2(23), 2(27), 2(28), 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 15(1), 16, 17, 25, 25(1), 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 68, 106, 110, 111, 113 and 115; Finance Act, 1980 - Sections 4(4) and 47; Customs Act, 1886; Customs Tariff Act, 1894; Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Sections 37, 57 and 86; Customs Rules; Customs Regulations

Reported in : 1985(4)ECC1; 1985LC554(Kerala); 1999(110)ELT474(Ker)

48, 68, 106, 110, 111, 115; Finance Act, 1980, Section 4(4); Finance Act, 1981, Section 47; Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Section 3 ; Countervailing Duty; Notfn. Nos. 176/79-CUS., 186/79-CUS, 41/80-CUS., 75/81-CUS., 76/81-CUS. - Import of Aluminium Ingots--Bate of Duty … 26-3-1981. The bill of entry for the clearance of the goods was presented on 28-3-1981. With effect from 27-3-1981 auxiliary duty at 5 per cent became payable and additional duty was enhanced from 12.5 percent to 40

Yogesh Chandra Joshi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 - Sections 27

Reported in : AIR1998SC3239; JT1998(5)SC197; 1998(5)SCALE131; (1998)7SCC50; [1998]Supp1SCR371; (1998)3UPLBEC1780

having been created in consonance with the provisions of Section 27 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inasmuch as prior approval of the Government had not been taken before … Court of Allahabad challenging the order of reversion to the post of Accounts Officer from the post of Finance Officer in Jal Sansthan by order dated 18.9.92. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by the

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act - Sections 2(45), 3, 7, 10(27), 32A(2), 33(1), 43A, 80JJ, 88J and 256(2); Finance Act, 1964; Finance Act, 1975; Finance Act, 1976; Sales Tax Act; Central Excise Act

Reported in : AIR1999SC1225; [1999]237ITR174(SC); JT1999(2)SC338; 1999(2)SCALE257; (1999)3SCC632; [1999]2SCR177

the exemption to Rs. 10,000 in a year.12. Consequently, Section 10(27) of the Act was omitted by the Finance Act 1975 with effect from 1st April, 1976 and Section 80J was brought into the Act with effect from the

Dharamsee Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra Through S ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Municipal Tax

Acts : Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1976 - Sections 3, 27, 35 and 67; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR94; 2002(4)BomCR340

with the services rendered by the Board. In this connection two other provisions in the Act are relevant. Section 27 gives general principles for the Board finance which reads thus :'27. The Board shall not, as far as … rendered. In support of his submission, Mr. Nerlekar took us through the various provisions of the Act of 1975, the rules and bye-laws and submitted that the impugned levy of fees is unreasonable and the power of

Duncan Services Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 36(1), 37, 40A(7), 147, 147(B) and 148

Reported in : [1992]198ITR264(Delhi)

submitted that, in regard to deduction on account of the gratuity payment, an amendment was introduced by the Finance Act, 1975, by way of section 40A(7). The change was introduced with retrospective effect from April 1, 1973. Accordingly to … order and the said information was also received from the special cell of the Revenue audit on January 27, 1978.' 3. The petitioner submitted that, in regard to deduction on account of the gratuity payment, an amendment

Modi Vanaspati Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1985)(22)ELT615TriDel

on or after 1-10-1975. The significance of this date is that by virtue of Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1982, an Explanation was inserted under Sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of Section 4 (4) of the Central … briefly stated, had the effect of giving the above Explanation retrospective effect for the period from 1-10-1975 to 27-2-1982.5. It is commonly accepted that the above amendment was in consequence of the view taken by the Delhi

Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Niranjan Narottam (individual)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1985)14ITD27(Ahd.)

department pointed out that the question at issue was whether Section 7(4) inserted by Section 27(3)(b) of the Finance Act, 1976, is effective prospectively from the assessment year 1976-77 onwards or is applicable retrospectively for an earlier year … assessee's case, Shri Niranjan Narottam (Individual), it is pointed out that for the purpose of the assessment year 1975-76, if the question of valuation is decided against the department, the order could stand. Otherwise, the matter has

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Customs

Acts : Finance Act, 2007 - Sections 99 and 114; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 7, 12, 22, 25, 28(1), 30 and 76A to 76N; Sea Customs Act; Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 - Sections 1, 2, 2(1), 3, 3(1), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(4), 5, 7, 12, 15(9), 26, 26(1), 26(2), 30, 51, 53, 53(1), 53(2) and 55; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 38 and 38(1); Taxation Act - Sections 3, 3(1) and 4A; Trade Marks Act - Sections 28; Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 3; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4 and 4(1); Factories Act, 1948; Sea Customs (Amendment) Act, 1955; Land Customs Act; Indian Aircrafts Act, 1911; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 2, 2(15), 2(18), 2(19), 2(20), 2(22), 2(23), 2(25), 2(26), 2(27), 12, 14, 14(1), 17, 18, 46 and 50; Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; Income

Reported in : [2010]24STT121

permitted the goods into the zone. By virtue of Section 114(n) read with the 3rd Schedule to the Finance Act, 2007, Heading No. 11 of the Second Schedule - Export Tariff to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was … duty will be leviable on sale of iron ore/iron ore pellets to SEZ Units in view of Rule 27 of the SEZ Rules, 2006. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-I, Surat-I Commissionerate had also sought clarification from

Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kerala

Subject : ExciseCustoms

Acts : Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Sections 2, 2(11), 2(13), 2(23), 2(25), 2(26), 2(27), 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 to 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 45 to 49 and 68; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 15(1) and 25(1); Finance Act, 1981; Central Excise Act

Reported in : 1984(2)ECC164; 1984(16)ELT183(Ker)

:-(i) Basic duty under Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;(ii) Auxiliary duty of customs under the Finance Act; and(iii) Additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.By a notification issued on … also in exercise of power under Section 25(1), exempting additional duty in excess of 12 1/2 %.3. On 27-3-1981 two notifications numbered as 75 and 76 were issued. The effect of the first, read with the provisions

Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1983)LC439DTri(Delhi)

131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act), as it existed before its amendment by the Finance Act, 1980 (No. 2 of 1980), which stands transferred under the provisions of Section 131-B ibid to the Appellate … 17-10-77 when the goods were assessed under Heading No. 84.59(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and duty levied at 60%+15% Basic Customs duty and Auxiliary duty respectively. The appellants paid the Customs duty … 18-11-1978 to the Assistant Collector of Customs, who rejected the claim as barred by limitation laid down in Section 27(1) of the Act.4. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay held that the appellants' claim for refund