Home Case Index All Cases Customs Tri Customs - Tri This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 4 of 4 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.

• 2012 (4) TMI 578
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... arch of the Constitution in the Preamble and the relevant articles in Parts III and IV, protective discrimination ensures practical content applying the protective and actuality and equality in results, instead of legal equality, in favour of the disadvantaged segments of the Society." 25. A perusal of the above judgement will unambiguously show that the rules of the Institute clearly laid down a provision for reservation for filling up vacancies in the post of Assistant professor by direct recruitment or by promotion. In that view of the matter, the above judgement will not come to the aid of the applicant. 26. Having carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the entire material available on record, we have no hesitation in repel the contentions raised by the applicant. We do so. The two questions raised for consideration are answered in the negative. 27. The Original Application is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their costs.

  ---

• 2011 (5) TMI 919
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... plinary enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annex A-1) is quashed and set aside . The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while allowing OA of Shri S.N. Ojha. 6. From above, it is clear that the present case is fully covered because here also the incident related to December, 1998. Show cause notice was given to the applicant on 23.12.1999. The Commissioner exonerated the applicant under Customs Act in August, 2003 by observing departmental enquiry should be initiated against him yet no action was taken. The only ground taken by the respondents is that departmental enquiry has been initiated on the advice of CVC but when was the advice given has also not been explained. We, therefore, hold respondents have not been able to explain the delay in initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant. 7. We, therefore, quash the charge sheet dated 18.11.2010 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The OA is allowed. No costs.

  ---

• 2010 (12) TMI 97
  
  CESTAT Member – Deemed confirmation - whether Member considered deemed to have been confirmed from probation after the prescribed one year of probation - provision existed for extension by two years, one year at a time, when the probation was extended towards the end of the third year, simultaneously for both the years; and whether the order of the Applicant’s discharge from service would be considered - Rule also does not say that the two years’ period of probation, as mentioned in the Rule, is the maximum period of probation and the probation cannot be extended beyond the period of two years – No deemed confirmation as per rules governing applicant – Instructions that shotcomings of probationer to be brought to his notice being administrative instructions, not create any right in his favor – Application dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (7) TMI 681
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Appellant had been aware that he only had the right of appeal against the re-registration, and not against the assessment. We decided that it was clear both from the wording of the grounds of appeal, and the content of the Respondents' letter dated 4 February 1999 that the situation was entirely clear to him. In addition, at the time he lodged his appeal he had solicitors acting for him. 38. We are satisfied on the basis of all the evidence before us that the Appellant was not properly declaring his takings. Furthermore, although we have doubts about Mr Clark's methods and methodology, in particular with regard to the raising of the assessment, nonetheless we are satisfied for the reasons advanced by Mr Keller that the amount of underdeclaration was sufficient such that, had the Appellant maintained true records, he would have been over the registration limits at all times. In all the circumstances therefore this appeal is dismissed. 39. There is no order for costs.

  ---

1