Section 3621 - Judgment Search Results

N.T.C. (Wbab and O) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Anjan K. Saha

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2004SC4255; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1154; 2004(4)AWC3018(SC); 2004(4)CTC455; JT2004(9)SC109; (2004)IIILLJ757SC; 2004(7)SCALE128; (2004)7SCC581; 2005(1)SLJ215(SC)

d m dharmadhikari j 1 this appeal is preferred by national textile corporation wbab o ltd under whose employment the...

Sobha Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2004(2)KLT755

kurian joseph j 1 assessment of suitability under rule 28 of the ks ssr is generally oh consideration of the...

Postal Service Vs. Flamingo Industries (Usa) Ltd.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... change the definition of person in the statute but added a new section allowing the united states to sue see 15 u s c ..... corporations the most important being that it does not seek profits 3621 it also has broader obligations including the provision of universal mail ..... for all postal services including both letter carriage and parcel delivery 3621 rates are set by the board of governors based on the .....

Suraj Bhan Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2004)(170)ELT467Tri(Bang.)

fabrics falling under heading 54 06 which is covered under section 3a of central excise act 1944 for levy of central

Air Works Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(176)ELT404Tri(Mum.)bai

that the goods under import are liable to confiscation under section 111 d of the customs act he allowed re export

Yokogawa Blue Star Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2006)3STR284

of rs 42 44 475 with a total penalty under sections 76 and 78 which works out to rs 84 88

Vandana Art Prints P. Ltd. and 4 Vs. Commissioner of Cen. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

007 and penalty of rs 1 20 12 564 under section 11ac of the central excise act plus rs one lakh

Balaji Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2004)(175)ELT283Tri(Mum.)bai

redemption fine required to be imposed but the provisions of section 125 of the customs act 1962 are well taken but

Binjusaria Metal Box Company Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT

Reported in: (2004)(172)ELT65Tri(Bang.)

1985 which are covered by the compounded levy scheme under section 3a of the central excise act 1944 he said the

Parbat B. Patel and Narsi D. Patel Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

origin which were found to be liable to confiscation under section 111 d of the customs act 1962 as they were