Him - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: him Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 9,971 results (0.236 seconds)Tata Iron and Steel Co. Vs. Him Ispat Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas537(HP)
..... its prima facie opinion that the sick industrial company m s him ispat ltd hil was not likely to make its net worth ..... industrial and financial reconstruction aaifr another appeal was also preferred by him ispat mazdoor singh against the aforesaid order of the bifr both ..... persisted that after the decision of the bifr this objection of him ispat ltd does not hold good therefore deserves to be rejected .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCce, Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Him Clylinders (P) Ltd., M/S.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-2001
1 this is an application filed by the commissioner central excise chandigarh for referring the following question of law to...
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Him-pushp Engineers Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
1 the issue involved in this case is whether modvat credit to be claimed on waste generated during the production...
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShri Maninder Pal Singh, M/S. Him Vs. Cc New Delhi
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-09-2001
..... advocate submits that there is another appeal filed by m s him electronics traders in which a prayer has been made for staying ..... same at this stage accordingly the stay application filed by m s him electronics traders is dismissed as not pressed 3 as regards the ..... was his submission that the appeal filed by the both m s him electronics traders and shri maninder pal singh be heard without insisting .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Ajnala Coop. Sugar Mills Vs. Cce, Chandigarh
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)(75)ECC667
..... that the appellants therein had realised any amount over and above the price declared by him and accordingly the claim for differential duty was found to be unsustainable following the ratio .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Ct Scan Research Centre (P) Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-2001
..... and fulfil all the conditions contained in the notification and failure on his part render him liable for payment of duty and the goods are liable for confiscation he therefore prays .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Topack Industries (India) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)(137)ELT1312Tri(Mum.)bai
..... the appeal the commissioner appeals has confirmed the order of the dy commissioner impugned before him imposing under rule 173q a penalty of rs 1 lakh on the appellant and confiscating .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Balmer Lawrie Van Leer Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
..... an authority of a power granted to it under the law in the case before him to recover duty i do not see how this observation have any bearing on the .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTM/S. Air India Vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
Reported in: (2001)(77)ECC84
..... and set aside this order we remand the proceedings back to the jurisdictional commissioner for him to pass suitable orders in terms of sections 61 and 72 of the act which .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTDr. Pankaj Naram'S Herbal Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-2001
..... commissioner finds that it bore the brand name herbo which belonged to the applicant before him and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of the notification 1 93 5 the .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial