Advanced Search Results

Commissioner Customs Department Vs. Smt. Nirmala Mitra

Court : Patna

Subject : CustomsLimitation

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 130A; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 29(2)

luminaries can be summarized as to whether the High Court is entitled to apply the provisions of Indian Limitation Act specially Section 29(2) and Section 5 to condone the delay, in an application under Section 130A of … specially Section 29(2) and Section 5 to condone the delay, in an application under Section 130A of Indian Customs Act made by the party appellant. We are required to explicit what is the implicit and inherent in

M/S.Alfas Trading International Private Limited vs the Joint Commissio ...

Court : Kerala

is without jurisdiction and non existence. the second ground is that the order has not been passedwithin the limitation prescribed under the provision of Sub-Section (9)of Section 28 inasmuch as the notice is dated 20.04.2022 and the … ADVS. SRI. M. BALAGOPAL SMT. R. DEVIKA SMT. ANJALI MENON SMT. THRESSY THOMAS RESPONDENTS:1 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISING IMPORTS), CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, WILLINGDON

Crystal Trades, a Partnership Firm Rep. by One of Its Partners B. Laks ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : CustomsCivil

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 28; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11A; Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 - Sections 19; Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2009(169)LC205(Madras)

Act, 1962 are without jurisdiction, because the said show cause notices have been issued beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the show cause notices issued are barred by time under Section 28(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.12.

JaIn Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1987)(11)LC545Tri(Mum.)bai

the petitioners could not be sent to the Appellate Tribunal where the remedy of appeal was barred by limitation. But the appellants chose to approach the North Regional Bench of the Tribunal in pursuance of the Hon'ble … both dated 19.2.1985 against the Orders No. 6/Collr/1982 dated 17.12.1982 and No.7/Collr./l982 dated 18.12.1982 of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad with the North Regional Bench of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,

idl Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4(1); Central Excise Rules - Rule 9 and 9A

Reported in : 84(1997)CLT434; 1997(92)ELT289(SC); JT1997(5)SC440; 1997(4)SCALE199; (1997)5SCC311

Sen, J.1. The appellant, IDL Chemicals Limited, manufactures explosives at its factory at Sonaparbat. The raw materials for explosives are obtained from diverse sources. The … from diverse sources. The finished goods are sold in the following manner: (i) Goods which are sold to customers like Coal India Limited.(ii) Goods sold to public sector companies and Government undertakings.(iii) Goods which are sold to

Velji P. and Sons (Agencies) Pvt. Vs. C.C.E.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2008)12STT148

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad

United States Vs. Parke, Davis and Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : MRTP

published resale price list; the wholesalers "accepted Soft-Lite's proffer of a plan of distribution by cooperating in prices, limitation of sales to and approval of retail licensees. That is sufficient. . . . Whether this conspiracy and … The District Court erred in holding that these practices constituted only unilateral action by appellee in selecting its customers, as permitted by United States v. Colgate Co., 250 U. S. 300 . Appellee did not merely announce

Pawan Foam Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2004)(96)ECC518

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Xl Telecom Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2006)(108)ECC288

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Wipro Infotech Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Customs

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 - Rules 6, 6(1) and 15

Reported in : 2001(75)ECC498; 2001(130)ELT27(Kar)

copy of that affidavit.4. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that, under proviso to Rule 6, limitation could be extended for thirty days more beyond what is prescribed. It has been further stated as under … an application dated 7-10-1993 for exercise of power conferred on the Central Government vide Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, for relaxation. According to the petitioner, same were rejected by the