Impressible - Judgment Search Results

impression Prints Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC3980; 2005(102)ECC1; 2005(187)ELT170(SC); JT2005(7)SC585; (2005)7SCC497

from cotton fabrics.We have considered the rival submissions. It must be mentioned that in the beginning we were impressed by Mr. Bagaria's submissions. However we find that the authorities of this Court, relied upon by Mr. Parasaran,

DolphIn Impressions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT123Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai, who in the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authority who demanded Rs. 5,25,111/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. Briefly...

M/S. Impression Prints Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

NB (DB) dated 20.11.2000 while hearing the stay application No.E/Stay/1708/2000 NB in Appeal No.E/2968/2000 NB filed by M/s. Impression Prints, the Tribunal had directed the appellants to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards duty within a period

Commnr. of Central Excise, Kolkatta-i Vs. Web Impression India Ltd.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench Kolkatta (in short `CEGAT'). In this case the CEGAT followed the order passed by another...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Impress Ad-aids and Displays

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2004)(173)ELT137Tri(Bang.)

1. By this appeal Revenue is challenging the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal No. 496/2000-C.E., dated 6-9-2000 by which the Commissioner has noted that the lower authority was not justified in imposing a huge penalty of Rs....

The Commissioner of Central Vs. Impressive Computer Systems Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT104Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute relates to classification of "Polaroid Digital Imaging Systems", consisting of PRO palette 8000, HR 6000 (film recorder), Sprintscan...

S.B.P. Anand Mohan Vs. Graphic Impressions (Madras)

Court: Company Law Board CLB

Reported in: (2004)120CompCas265

1. The petitioner holding 14.83 per cent of the issued and paid-up capital in M/s. Graphic Impressions (Madras) Limited ('the Company') has filed this petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act')

Kp Permanent Make-up, Inc. Vs. Lasting Impression I, Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc. - 03-409 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. V. LASTINGIMPRESSION I, INC. SUPREME

In the Matter of Multi Impression Carbons Private Ltd(vol. Liqn.) Vs.. ...

Court: Delhi

COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:01. 02.2019 + CO.PET. 4/2019 IN THE MATTER OF MULTI IMPRESSION CARBONS PRIVATE LTD(VOL. LIQN.) ....... Petitioner Through Mr. Deepak Anand, Adv for OL. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT

M/s. Add Print (India) Enterprises Private Limited by its Manager, Ker ...

Court: Chennai

of the end consumers and the said stamp is a unique product with modern quality, which gives 30000 impressions of the stamp. The sales turn over was increased from Rs.1,18,445/- in the financial year 1999-2000 to Rs.14,100,000/-