Advanced Search Results
Shayona Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
May-28-2004
Excise
(2004)(172)ELT111Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Shri Rajeev Waglay, C.A appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.K. Saxena, Ld. JDR appeared for the revenue.2. At the outset Shri R Waglay fairly admitted that HSD is excluded by Notification No.5/94...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskM/S. Asiatic Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Iii
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Mar-08-2010
Land Acquisition
Shri Rajeev Waglay, Advocate for Appellant. Shri H.B. Negi, SDR for Respondents.
Per : P.G. Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself requires to be summarily disposed of. Accordingly, after allowing the present application (for out of turn disposal of...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMrs. Uma Borkar Vs. Ito
Mumbai
Jun-01-2001
Direct Taxation
(2001)72TTJ(Mumbai)985
Rajeev Waglay, for the Assessee Mrs. Lalita Menon, for the Revenue
ORDERG.D. Agarwal, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) XXII, Mumbai. In this appeal, the assessee has raised as many as 4 grounds. However, they are all against the addition...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
M/S. Interscape Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Mar-08-2010
Land Acquisition
Shri Rajeev Waglay, Advocate for Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR for Respondents.
Per : P.G. Chacko After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the appeal itself is fit for remand. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appeal was...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›