Classifier - Judgment Search Results

Indian Express Classified Vs. D.C. Gupta

Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

..... sent to the appellant at the following address the indian express classified sector 35d sco no 309 310 1st floor chandigarh through its ..... given the following address in the memo of appeal indian express classified sco no 309 310 sector 35 b chandigarh through its regional ..... copy of the notice placed on record the indian express classified sector 35 d sco no 309 310 1st floor chandigarh through .....

Kerala Classified Hotels and Resorts Ass Vs. Union of India

Court: Kerala

..... july2013 12th ashadha 1935 wp c no 14045 of 2011 e petitioner s 1 kerala classified hotels and resorts association regn no t 1832 2009 t c no 25 3592 2 .....

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bakelite Hylam

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(51)LC436Tri(Delhi)

..... hylam v cce hyderabad that laminated plastic sheets having electrically insulating properties are correctly classifiable as insulators under tariff item 68 in view of these decisions of the tribunal ..... preparations of cellulose decolite or of other synthetic plastic materials prepreg g was earlier classified under ti 22 b which reads textile fabrics impregnated coated or laminated with preparation .....

Naga Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in: (2002)(81)ECC713

..... added substances for example disinfectants abrasive powders fillers or medicaments products containing abrasive powders remain classified in heading no 34 01 only if in the from of bars cakes or ..... is applicable therefore the department proceeded to allege that the preparation in question would be classifiable as a surface active preparation in view of the surface active preparation predominating or .....

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Jan De Nul N.V.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in: (2003)LC871Tri(Chennai)

..... dredger and the dredger cannot function without the items therefore the commissioner appeals order to classify them along with dredger should be accepted however he contended that he would not like ..... classification against the well laid down principle of classification which guided the original authority to classify the items in his order 35 for the purpose of classification the hsn explanatory notes .....

Commissioner of Central Excise Etc. Vs. m/s.aishwarya Industries Throu ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... of the above would lead to the conclusion that if the impugned goods are classifiable under tariff item 3305 90 19 then the impugned goods are automatically excluded from ..... harmonized system of nomenclature hsn is an internationally standardized system of names and numbers for classifying traded products developed and maintained by the world customs organization wco formerly the customs .....

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/S. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... of the above would lead to the conclusion that if the impugned goods are classifiable under tariff item 3305 90 19 then the impugned goods are automatically excluded from ..... harmonized system of nomenclature hsn is an internationally standardized system of names and numbers for classifying traded products developed and maintained by the world customs organization wco formerly the customs .....

The State Of Punjab Vs. Davinder Singh

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... among them challenged the constitutionality of the rule on the ground that it classified within the class of assistant engineers based on their educational qualification and such a ..... quantifiable data to prove backwardness and inadequacy of representation this standard applies for classifying groups for the purpose of reservations and would equally apply for sub classification within .....

Commissioner Of Customs Central Excise And Service Tax Hyderabad Vs. A ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... for retail sale the adjudicating authority observed that the claim of the respondent for classifying the product in question under the said heading remained baseless however the adjudicating authority ..... tariff structure in the year 2012 but then notwithstanding the amendments ahaho has remained classifiable under chapter 30 as its ingredients or manufacturing process did not undergo any change .....

Commr.of Cen.exc.ahmedabad Vs. M/s Urmin Products P.ltd. .

Court: Supreme Court of India

..... which attracted duty of 34 on both the products at the time the assessee classified or re classified the product manufactured and hitherto declared as chewing tobacco to zarda jarda scented ..... it is submitted that looking to the production process ingredients the product is already correctly classified under cetsh2403910 and does not merit classification under the cetsh2403930 as claimed by the .....