Photographic - Judgment Search Results
Subhash Photographics and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-11-1993
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC10; 1993LC234(SC); 1993(66)ELT3(SC); JT1993(4)SC116; 1993(2)SCALE909; 1993Supp(3)SCC323; [1993]3SCR654
and order of the Bombay High Court in a batch of writ petitions. The question is whether the photographic machinery imported by the appellants falls under Customs Tariff Heading No. 98.01. If it falls under it, it
S.S. Photographic Lab. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Feb-01-2006
thumbnail facts necessary to provide the contextual background may be noted. First the petitioners' version. The petitioner M/s. Photographic Laboratory Pvt. Limited, is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its place of
Subhash Photographics Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)BomCR49; 1992(62)ELT270(Bom)
B. P. Saraf, J. 1. The question for determination in this batch of writ petitions is whether the photographic machineries imported by the petitioners fall under Tariff Heading No. 98.01 and are entitled to the benefit of
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Indian Photographic Company Ltd., (Previously Kodak Limited), Madras V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2002
Reported in: [2002]128STC435(Mad)
Matched in: Parties Indian Photographic Company Ltd., (Previously Kodak Limited), Madras Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Commercial Tax Officer-ii, Central Assessment Circle, Madras
East India Photographic Traders' Association and Ors. Vs. State of Wes ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal92
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. In this Rule, petitioner 1, East India Photographic Traders Association and the petitioner No. 2, Sri Saral Kumar Dutta and petitioner 3, Sri Hem Ranjan Bose
India Photographic Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Saumitra Mohan Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ471Cal
an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 preferred by the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant, India Photographic Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has preferred the present appeal.2. The plaintiff is an employee
India Photographic Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT524TriDel
The appellants filed Bill of Entry Cash No. 1787 dated 16-1-1987 for the clearance of a consignment of photographic films. After clearance of the goods they filed a claim for refund of duty on the grounds that
Aver Photographic Company and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Matched in: Parties Aver Photographic Company and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Procolor Photographics Private Ltd. Vs. Ocl Photo Industries (P) Ltd. ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-06-1991
perusal of the complaints that the complainant "is a concern of long standing dealing in photography, sale of photographic goods etc." as stated in para 1 of the complaints. The magnitude of the activity of the complainant
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-ii Vs. Allied Photographics Ind ...
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(92)ECC777; 2004(166)ELT3(SC); JT2004(4)SC105; 2004(3)SCALE447; (2004)4SCC34; [2007]8STT365
New India Industries Ltd. (NIIL) is incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and carries on business of manufacturing photographic printing paper which became chargeable to excise duty vide tariff item No. 37-C(2) of the Central Excise Act
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 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