2 D - Judgment Search Results
1) Orient (Goa) Ltd. and Another (W. P. No. 190 of 1994) (2) D. B. Ban ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)124CTR(Bom)196; [1994]210ITR896(Bom); [1994]81TAXMAN363(Bom)
PANAJI BENCHG. D. KAMAT J. - The petitioners are companies and they challenge the warrant of search and proceedings relating thereto … under Section 34 of the Act Bombay Court Fees Act (36 of 1959), Schedule I, Article 3, Schedule II, Article 1(f)(iii) Held, According to Article 3 of Schedule I, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum
Neyveli National Workers Union (Regd.No.286/Sat). Rep. by Its General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC301; [1999(81)FLR1008]; (1999)ILLJ308Mad; (1999)IMLJ424
ORDER1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the proceedings No.Aa2/Pa.Le.No.145/95, dated 21.1.1997 and issued on 9.6.1998 by the Additional Registrar-II of Trade Unions and Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, D.M.S. Compound,
G.K. Steels (Coimbatore) Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Vs. the Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-2008
Reported in: 2009(238)ELT709(Mad)
Cause Notice dated 05.03.1998 calling upon him to show cause as to why a differential duty of Rs. 29,01,015/- should not be demanded and further penalty should not be imposed on them under the Central Excise Rules. … Chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.1998 calling upon him to show cause as to why a differential duty of Rs. 29,01,015/- should not
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free