Ex V Union - Judgment Search Results
Excell Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. V. Union of India and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)BomCR447; (1996)98BOMLR257; 1996(85)ELT225(Bom)
No. 4 of 1968 was before the Supreme Court in the case of Ahura Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1982 ECR 625D (SC) : ECR C 649 SC : 1981 ELT 613 (S.C.). The appellant … 'INDOSTAT SF52' and 'INDOSTAT SF' which, the petitioners claim, are classifiable under Tariff Item 3402.90 and eligible for exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 101 of 1966 dated 17th June, 1966 as amended from time to
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. V. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(86)ELT205(Bom)
The electrical stampings were classifiable under Tariff Item No. 28A of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). 3. The petitioners state that for the manufacture of the … Cold Rolled Sheets so as to attract duty at the rate of Rs. 650/- per M.T. 16. In view of the above position, we are of the opinion that once it is found by both the authorities
Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India and Anotherwithraj Kanwar V. Union of ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Aug-27-1992
Reported in: AIR1993SC1407; JT1992(5)SC92; 1992(1)SCALE484; (1992)4SCC605; [1992]Supp1SCR53
suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992-Mrs. … the hearing by Shri Sibal accepting the position that the allegation of bias against the Committee could be examined only at the instance of Mr. Justice V. Ramswami who is not even a party in either of
18-section briefs on any result in this list
M/S. Binani Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. M/S. Pragdas Ma ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Dec-11-1973
Reported in: (1974)3CTR(SC)18
in Belgium by their principal occasioned the movement of goods in course of import and sales-tax was not exigible on the transaction in view of sec. 5(2) of the Central Sales-Tax Act, 1956. On the basis of … Bengal Finance Act, 1941 and the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956. The petitioner used to procure non-ferrous metals for various countries and also from within the country for fulfilling its contracts with the Government of India through the … from within the country for fulfilling its contracts with the Government of India through the DGS&D.; The import of non-ferrous metals was under Open General
Hitech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. Tico Machines (P) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(AP)305
we may add that in Srikakollu Subba Rao & Co. vs . Union of India : [1988]173ITR708(AP) a Division Bench of this Court upheld the … is illegal.5. In WP No. 3051 of 1996 an additional relief is also sought for, viz., that the Expln. to cl. (va) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36 of the IT Act, is unconstitutional. The reliefs in … 1992 which are representative of the facts in the other writ petitions.2. The petitioners are challenging the constitutional validity of s. 43B and s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961, in so far as they provide for
Abdul Sattar Vs. Union of India and ors. (Also Chatisgarh Bidi Leaves ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(MP)352
convenient disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions, the facts given in Writ Petition No. 1059/1996, Abdul Sattar vs. Union of India & Ors. are taken into consideration.3. The petitioner by this petition has prayed for issuance … the process of drying, the bundles are collected and kept in heaps.(viii) That after this process, it is examined whether the dried leaves are soft enough for the manufacturing of bidis. If it is not so soft,
Raj Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. (Dina Nath and ors. V. ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Dec-02-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR584(P& H)
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Patna High Court in Santosh Verma v. Union of India : [1991]189ITR549(Patna) in this behalf. It would be apt to notice the relevant passage of this … the notice. The list included the FDRs of the petitioners. According to the bank the respondent No. 3 exerted a lot of undue pressure on the then Chief Manager Mr. L. K. Dham to encash the FDRs
Mr. Jalil Ahmed Ansari and anr. Vs. the Development Commissioner and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001IVAD(Delhi)838; 91(2001)DLT747; 2001(59)DRJ9
ORDERVijender Jain, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the election to the Carpet Export Promotion Council on the ground that the notification issued by respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council notifying the schedule of … issued by respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council notifying the schedule of election, date of issue of the list of valid nominations and issue of postal ballot papers were on 1.12.2000 and last date of the receipt of the … of the matters above, decision of the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts), Govt. of India, Ministry of Textiles, shall be final and binding.4. She further contended that
Jayamal Jayantilal Thakore Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Jun-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Guj)384
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed Anis vs . Union of India , it was contended that since the power of the … on the IT authorities to enquire into and investigate the sources of income in the light of huge expenses alleged to have been incurred by respondent No. 4 when several BJP MLAs were taken to Khajuraho in … that the respondent No. 4 Mr. Shankarsinh Waghela earlier belonged to the Bharatiya Janata Party and with a view to overthrow the elected council of ministers, he had revolted 'with muscle and money power .....' and misusing
Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors. (Also P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)346
TAX Compulsory purchase of immovable property by Central Government-- - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 141; [A.P. Shah, C.J., F.M. Ibrahim Kaliffulla &V. Ramasubramanian, JJ] Reference … of the authority on such comparison that there had been substantial undervaluation by the petitioner which was in excess of 15 per cent of the market value cannot in any way be said to be vitiated on … UNDER S. 269UD--Petitioners failed to rebute presumption.Ratio:In the circumstances of the case, order passed under section 269UD was valid as petitioners have failed to rebute presumption arose as a consequence that undervaluation was with intent to evade
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free