Implement - Judgment Search Results

Central India Builders Vs. the Food Corporation of India Project Imple ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2003(4)ALLMR561; 2003(3)ARBLR586(Bom); 2003(6)BomCR264

F.I. Rebello, J. 1. Both the petitioners are being disposed of by common order. Arbitration Petition No. 191 of 2000 by the petitioners therein is to set aside the Award dated 20th November, 1989. Arbitration Petition...

Natrip Implementation Society Vs. IVRCL Limited

Court: Delhi

Vibhu Bakhru, J. 1. The appellant (hereafter NATRIP ) has filed the present appeal underSection 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning the order dated 21.05.2016 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal...

Mahesh Agriculture Implements and Forgings Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR809; 2005(2)BomCR625

for final relief and granted an interim stay in favour of the petitioner, thereby the effect, operation and implementation of the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court and the Labour Court has been stayed. The said

The Agricultural Implements Dealers Syndicate Vs. the Commissioner of ...

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: [1971]27STC227(MP)

kutti machines, but he claimed that this turnover was exempt from tax as kutti machine was an agricultural implement. This view was at first accepted by the Board of Revenue in 1964, but later on it was

Bharat Agri. Implements and Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur-ii

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2002)LC53Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bharat Agriculture Implements & Re-rolling Mills, is whether the benefit of Notification No. 208/83-C.E., is available to the iron & steel

Shivagrico Implements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(179)ELT573TriDel

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has enhanced the penalty under Rule 96ZP(3) against the appellants.2. The learned Counsel has contended that since the duty had already...

Kumaran Implements Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT223Tri(Bang.)

of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules against M/s. Kumaran Implements by holding that they were the real manufacturers of agricultural implements cleared by them and by M/s. Sree

Shivagrico Implements Limited Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

under notification No. 50/97-CE dated 1.8.97. The appellants came to know about the change of date of the implementation of the scheme of payment duty based on Annual Capacity Determination Rules after August. Therefore, they paid duty

Bharat Agriculture Implements Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1992)(42)LC518Tri(Delhi)

1. The present miscellaneous application emerges from stay order No.E/307/91-B1 dated 8th October, 1991. Shri V. Sridharan, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants. He pleaded that the earlier order passed by the...

Karnataka Implements and Vs. C.C.E.

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

Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT611Tri(Chennai)

1. Heard both the sides. In these 3 appeals, the issue involved is about chargeability of duty in respect of parts, components, fabricated and captively used for building a body on the chasis of the Motor...