C J - Judgment Search Results

C.J. Joshi and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT900Tri(Mum.)bai

employment of the appellant for dealing with Customs clearance or connected matters, we set aside the order impugned and allow the and such minor procedural formalities are not such as would justify revocation of the licence.The relative law of gravity of such

S.C.J. Master Batches Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(73)ECC545

and a penalty of Rs. 1 Lac imposed by the Commissioner and got the machinery released. In view of our finding The offer price on CIF basis and FOB basis are JP Yen 52,36,310 and JP Yen 47,23,310 respectively and as there

M/S. C.J. and Company Vs. Commissioner, Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2001)(138)ELT123TriDel

due to typographical error they wrongly mentioned the goods as cut and polished stone in the Shipping Bills and they made

M/S C.J. JiletIn Prodect Limited Vs. Union of India

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1 MCC. No.604/2012 12.09.2012 Shri K.K.Patel learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. The the present application which is accordingly dismissed. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-

C.J. John, Chairman Venad Kuries and Loans (P) Ltd. Vs. P.P. Mukundan

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

set aside. The Forum is directed to consider the above contention of the revision petitioner and precede after considering the same. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the first opposite

C.J.John Cherumpilil Vs. M/S.indira Gandhi Memmorial Co-operative Hosp ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Counsel for the second opposite party is present. Hence the complaint is OP.118/2000 is dismissed for default. SRI. M.V. VISWANANTHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER No representation for the complainant. On the last hearing

C.J. Hemanth Vs. The Tahsildar, Dindigul District

Court: Chennai Madurai

petitioner, in his representation dated 30.11.2015, addressed to the District Collector, Dindigul, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar/respondent (in writ petition), on the merits of the matter, in the interest of justice, directs the respondent/Tahsildar, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District to look into the

C.J. Hemanth Vs. The District Transport Officer, Regional Transport Of ...

Court: Chennai Madurai

the name in favour of the petitioner in the Registration Certificate for the car being Registration No.TN 60 E 2608. 2.

C.J. Gelatine Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

not called for as that decision had been arrived without considering these two member decisions.2.4 When duty demands could not be view of the two member decisions of this Tribunal in J G Glass Ltd 1988 (37) ELT 248 and Hindustan Motors

C.J. Shah and Co., Goodlass Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

was no valid notification provisional or otherwise in force which calls for levy of Anti dumping duty since Notification 90/02 had