Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Plaintiff: rajeev waglay · Page 1 of about 4 results (0.027 seconds)

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

May 28 2004

Shayona Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-28-2004

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (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 & Ask

Mar 08 2010

M/S. Asiatic Gases Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Iii

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-08-2010

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Appellant : 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 & Ask

Jun 01 2001

Mrs. Uma Borkar Vs. Ito

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-01-2001

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2001)72TTJ(Mumbai)985

Advocate for Appellant : 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 & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Mar 08 2010

M/S. Interscape Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-08-2010

Subject : Land Acquisition

Advocate for Appellant : 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 & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial