Photographs - Judgment Search Results

Subhash Photographics and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

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

of business, they received photo negatives from various customers for the purpose of processing the same into positive photographs and prints for delivery thereof, against some job charges and that the process does not involve any sale

Subhash Photographics Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

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

Indian Photographic Company Ltd., (Previously Kodak Limited), Madras V ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2002]128STC435(Mad)

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. A common question that arises in the appeal is whether the sales of photography goods effected by the appellant/assessee to the local purchasers for the assessment year 1976-77 on the strength of

East India Photographic Traders' Association and Ors. Vs. State of Wes ...

Court: Kolkata

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

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

Aver Photographic Company and Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. These cases were listed today for reporting compliance to the stay order by which pre-deposit was directed. The applicants have filed miscellaneous application seeking leave to withdraw the appeals for the reason that they have...

India Photographic Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

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

Procolor Photographics Private Ltd. Vs. Ocl Photo Industries (P) Ltd. ...

Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

from a bare 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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-ii Vs. Allied Photographics Ind ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

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