Skip to content


Ex Parte - Judgment Search Results

Home > Cases Phrase: ex parte Page 1 of about 112 results (0.051 seconds)
Feb 16 2000 (TRI)

Parda Auto Parts and 5 ors. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(68)ECC647

In the searches conducted in their premises, the Customs officers examined the documentation of acquisition of such diesel engines and came sets of appeals are filed by the concerns and their partners who are engaged in dealing with used diesel engines. In

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 18 2007 (TRI)

Mpl Parts and Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax

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

Reported in: (2007)10STJ153CESTAT(Chennai)

orders of the original authority and the appellate authority.4. After examining the records, I find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) forgot to

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Apr 04 1978 (HC)

India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1981]130ITR311(Mad)

computation. On appeal by the assessee-company, the AAC confirmed the exclusion of these sums from the capital base, Thereupon, this matter of this court, to which one of us was a party, had in Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jul 11 2002 (HC)

Kovai Auto Parts Vs. Chief Cit (Tech)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN346(Mad)

ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. The point raised in these writ petitions is one which has been considered by us in...

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 25 2010 (TRI)

S. Hareesh, Part Time Sweeper Vs. the Superintendent of Post Offices S ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Mr. Justice K. Thankappan, Judicial Member The question raised in this Original Application has been considered by three judgments of...

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Sep 12 2012 (HC)

Gurudeen Parte Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

month. Till then the representation is decided, status-quo, as is existing today, shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed Gurudeen Parte versus State & Ors W.P.No.15058/2012 13/09/2012 Shri Rashid Suhal Siddiqui,

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Feb 13 2014 (HC)

Ram Bharose Parte Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

1 W.P. No.9800/2010 13.2.2014 Shri Brajesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent...

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Sep 29 2016 (HC)

Daon Auto Parts (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Court: Chennai

filed, more particularly in paragraph No.13, the petitioner sought to explain as to why they did not respond to the pre-revision the respondent. In effect in the Writ Petitions filed, more particularly in paragraph No.13, the petitioner sought to explain as to

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

Jan 19 2017 (HC)

Super Motor Parts vs.commissioner Trade and Taxes and Anr.

Court: Delhi

VALUE ADDED TAX & ANR. versus ........ RESPONDENTS SUPER MOTOR PARTS versus COMMISSIONER, TRADE & TAXES & ANR......... RESPONDENTS ........ Petitioner

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

May 27 1991 (TRI)

Track Parts Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC155

case though that case was with reference to the Central Excise Tariff Schedule of 1985. (This Schedule, like the Customs Tariff remain classified under that heading even if they are identifiable parts of machinery because of the operation of the exclusion clause

Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT

  • << Prev.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //