Quantification - Judgment Search Results

Employers, Management of Central P and D Inst. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC633; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)287; 2005(1)AWC618(SC); 2005(1)BLJR130; (2005)2CALLT89(SC); [2005(104)FLR373]; [2005(1)JCR129(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC148; (2005)ILLJ552SC; (2005)9SC

..... could rightly raise in the second round before the adjudicating authority its contentions on the quantification of the duty the assessees alternative claim to the benefit of modvat credit raised at ..... a passed in the second round is maintainable sections 35 l 35 g 3 4 quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub heading 8479 .....

D.G.M., Oil and Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Llias Abdulrehman

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC660; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)254; 2005(3)ESC424; [2005(104)FLR300]; (2005)2GLR1050; JT2005(11)SC87; (2005)ILLJ554SC; (2005)139PLR473; (2005)2SCC183

..... could rightly raise in the second round before the adjudicating authority its contentions on the quantification of the duty the assessees alternative claim to the benefit of modvat credit raised at ..... a passed in the second round is maintainable sections 35 l 35 g 3 4 quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub heading 8479 .....

Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC760; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)292; 2005(3)BomCR189; 2005(2)ESC158; JT2005(1)SC205; (2005)2SCC375; [2005]139STC444(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC901

..... could rightly raise in the second round before the adjudicating authority its contentions on the quantification of the duty the assessees alternative claim to the benefit of modvat credit raised at ..... a passed in the second round is maintainable sections 35 l 35 g 3 4 quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub heading 8479 .....

Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and anr. Vs. Suresh Raghunath Bhokare

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2005(2)ESC159; [2005(104)FLR302]; JT2005(1)SC207; (2005)ILLJ429SC; (2005)10SCC465; (2005)1UPLBEC899

..... could rightly raise in the second round before the adjudicating authority its contentions on the quantification of the duty the assessees alternative claim to the benefit of modvat credit raised at ..... a passed in the second round is maintainable sections 35 l 35 g 3 4 quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub heading 8479 .....

The Management of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Chief Inspectin ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2005(1)BLJR460; 2005(3)ESC458; [2005(104)FLR329]; [2005(2)JCR171(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC449; (2005)ILLJ722SC; (2005)9SCC605

..... could rightly raise in the second round before the adjudicating authority its contentions on the quantification of the duty the assessees alternative claim to the benefit of modvat credit raised at ..... a passed in the second round is maintainable sections 35 l 35 g 3 4 quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub heading 8479 .....

Bhanu Kumar JaIn Vs. Archana Kumar and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC626; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)257; 2005(1)ARC653; 2005(1)AWC609(SC); 2005(3)BomCR245; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN61; 2005(1)CTC368; [2005(2)JCR114(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC220; 2005(1)KLT4

..... could rightly raise in the second round before the adjudicating authority its contentions on the quantification of the duty the assessees alternative claim to the benefit of modvat credit raised at ..... a passed in the second round is maintainable sections 35 l 35 g 3 4 quantification of excise duty relevant factors assessee manufacturing plant and equipment falling under sub heading 8479 .....

D.D. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)568; 2004(2)ARBLR119(SC); [2005]123CompCas135(SC); 2004(3)MhLj1061; 2004(5)SCALE195; (2004)5SCC325

..... after the other dispute relating to interpretation of terms of agreement by arbitrator concerning the quantification of cost of construction held it does not amount to re writing of terms of .....

Tsubongse Sangtam and anr. Vs. State of Nagaland and ors.

Court: Guwahati

..... payable by t horiba sangtam to the university authority and during his lifetime no such quantification was made by the university authority by holding any enquiry whatsoever and therefore according ..... fact that no departmental or other judicial proceedings were initiated and also there was no quantification of amount due by mr sangtam during his lifetime the respondent authorities have illegally .....

Amitex Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(98)ECC264

..... before the bench for discussion because ac dc had accepted the quantification done by the development commissioner and subsequently there was an ..... excise authorities were not required to be bound by the wrong quantification of the d t a clearances fixed by the development ..... excluded that the excise authorities are not bound by the wrong quantification of the d t a clearances fixed by the development .....

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Raj Leather Cloth Industries (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(186)ELT332TriDel

..... 710 dated 27 9 1994 denied the benefit of notification and remanded the matter for quantification of duty the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand the respondents filed appeal and vide ..... accepted by the respondents and matter before the adjudicating authority was only in respect of quantification of demand on appeal filed by the respondents against the adjudication order where the only .....