Process - Judgment Search Results

Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. Assistants, Apprentices a ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1987)IILLJ404Cal

and rationalization of pay scales of the Officers of Bharat Process Mechanical Engineers & Waybird India Ltd. (henceforth to be referred

Mallika Saree Processing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2006)(110)ECC30

subsequent Notification No. 40/02. It is also seen that this process of decatising does not bring into existence new goods. For

New Process Fermentation Co. Vs. Maus

Court: US Supreme Court

all of them. The specification further says: "By using our process, we are enabled to clarify the beer and clear it

Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C.E.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1987(3)BomCR673; 1988(36)ELT531(Bom)

It is possible that in a given case, if any process is used amongst other numerous processes so as to turn

Extrusion Processes Pvt. Ltd. and Mobanbhai I. Patel of Bombay Vs. Shr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1988(14)LC529(Bombay)

to the manufacture of a finished product. However, unessential that process may be if it is incidental or ancillary to the

Jai Hind Process and Printing Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)LC457Tri(Delhi)

and in that context it was held that no manufacturing process could be said to have been involved by printing of

Usha Micro Process Controls Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC138Tri(Delhi)

import policy for computer system, process control systems, automatic data processing systems, computer systems were all same things and the words

Process Plant (India) Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(66)ECC150

and managed by the very same Directors of M/s. Troika Processes (P) Ltd. 3. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri

Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commerci ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1994]94STC183(Kar)

having distinctive name, character or use results from a particular process or a particular activity.' 16. Mr. Ramabhadran also referred to

Extrusion Process Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N.R. Jadhav, Superintendent of Central ...

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: 1979(4)ELT380(Guj); (1974)GLR161

plain extruded tubes do not require application of any further process of extrusion, it cannot be covered by sub-item (e) of