Displayer - Judgment Search Results

B.P.L. Display Devices Workers Union, Through Its Joint Secretary Shri ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: [2006(111)FLR1003]

S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 3.8.2000 (Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition), stated to have...

Promenade Retail Display Systems, vs State Tax Officer

Court: Kerala

JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943 PETITIONER/S: PROMENADE RETAIL DISPLAY SYSTEMS, GROUND FLOOR, 39/3521, KAUSTHUBHAM, MANIKKATH ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016, (REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, RESIDING

Hotline Wittis Display Devices Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(91)ECC628

were made; that after undertaking process of yamming they had cleared the said tubes to M/s. Hotline Wittis Display Devices Ltd. on the strength of invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by

Bpl Display Devices Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These two appeals, filed by M/s. B.P.L. Display Devices Ltd., are posted today for hearing the stay applications. However, we take up the appeals themselves for

Hotline Wittis Display Devices Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(97)ECC742

disallowance of Modvat Credit and imposition of penalty. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that M/s.Hotline Wittis Display Devices Ltd., Appellants No. 1, manufacture colour television and avail Modvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs

Hotline Display Devices Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on 29-6-2006 dismissing the appeal on the ground that they had not complied with the Interim Order dated 10-5-2005 and no pre-deposit was made...

Aplab Display Devices and Systems Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Custo ...

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed short levy of Rs. 21,20,913/- together with interest at the rate of 20% under the provisions of Section 11AB of the Central Excise...

Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Vs.bpl Display Devices Ltd. & An ...

Court: Delhi

SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. K. Datta and Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocates. versus BPL DISPLAY DEVICES LTD. & ANR. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate. Prathiba M.

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Prime Displays (P) Ltd.,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(1)ALLMR248; 2002(5)BomCR158; [2003]114CompCas141(Bom)

facts that are material and relevant for the purpose of deciding these applications are as under :2.1 Prime Displays (P) Ltd., Everest Media Ltd. and Abiz Business (P) Ltd. have filed company petitions against Larsen & Toubro

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Sign and Display Systems

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC40

when the respondent manufactures item falling under CH 3919 and undertakes printing on them directly.5. The learned Advocate displayed the samples of the final product produced by the respondents in the court.6. We have gone through the