Re Sound - Judgment Search Results

Salem District Sound System Association Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2001(131)ELT6(Mad); 2006[2]STR383; [2007]6STT267

Association should register within three days from the date of receipt of the notice and pay the tax. It is also The admission is specific that those who are independently performing sound system alone may not be attracted for levy of service

Prabhat Sound Studios Vs. Additional Collector of Central Excise

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1998(1)CTC312; 1996(88)ELT635(SC); JT1997(10)SC392; (1997)10SCC543; [1997]107STC70(SC)

sound...recording'. The recorded sound could be erased and sound freshly recorded; it could, therefore, hardly be said that a new or follow the dissenting view. It held that the recording of sound on such tapes was not a process that fell within

Atlantic Sounding Co. Vs. Townsend

Court: US Supreme Court

374375. The laudable quest for uniformity in admiralty does not require narrowing available damages to the lowest common denominator approved by CO. V. TOWNSEND SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO., INC., et al. v . TOWNSEND certiorari to the

Ministry of Sound International Ltd. Vs. Indus Renaissance Partners En ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 156(2009)DLT406

29.1 states that the Agreement would be governed in all respects by English Law and shall be considered and taken effect Pvt. Ltd. v. Elevate Entertainment Pvt. Ltd and Ministry of Sound International Ltd. in this Court and therefore they have abandoned

Puget Sound Power and Light Co. Vs. Seattle

Court: US Supreme Court

for which the license is required. The suit, brought to recover an installment of the tax already paid and to enjoin 271 U. S. 426 . [ Footnote 2 ] Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Seattle, 284 F. 659; Von

Sound Fibre Vs. B.K. Duplex Ltd.

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: [2009]95SCL14(Punj& Har)

winding up, the money shall not be allowed to be retained by the petitioner-company itself. The learned senior counsel appearing for persons, be it known, that I, Roger Paul Berg, of Sound Fibre as Grantor, do hereby make and grant a limited

Puget Sound Power and Light Co. Vs. King County

Court: US Supreme Court

personalty. That such a change in this case entailed no real hardship or arbitrary discrimination is shown by the fact that, Light Co. v. King County, 264 U.S. 22 (1924) Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. King County No. 138 Motion

Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. Vs. State Tax Comm'n

Court: US Supreme Court

as the business that it does is commerce immune from regulation by the states. What is decisive is the nature of Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 302 U.S. 90 (1937) Puget Sound Stevedoring Co. v. State Tax Commission No. 68 Argued October

Janaki Ultra Sound Center Vs. The Appropriate Authority and Others

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

writ petition is allowed. The action taken on behalf of Respondent no.2 of sealing the Sonography machines and the probes and / Genetic Laboratory / Genetic Clinic, per-natal Diagnostic Test, Ultra Sound Sonography as is prescribed under the said certificate of registration.

Sound Tracks Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(93)ECC522

audio cassettes tapes. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner as regards 'manufacture' under Central Excise Act to have taken place and purchased by the appellants directly from the suppliers. The original sound track i.e. master copy of the programme and inlay cards