Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Short Notes News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 28821 to 28840 of 29898 Records

  • 1984 (7) TMI 367

    ... ...
    ... ... ppropriate classification was 38.01/19 (6) as ”Plasticizers, not elsewwere specified". 11. We allow the appeal. Consequential relief shall be granted to the appellants within three months from the date of communication of this order.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 363

    ... ...
    ... ... ppeal as barred by time the appellants cannot in law make any grievance against such an order. The order passed by the Appellate Collector is wholly legal and therefore not to be interfered with. Accordingly, I reject this appeal as having no merit.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 356

    ... ...
    ... ... ame within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. 7. However there will be no order as to costs. 8. Communicate the order within 2 weeks.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 332

    ... ...
    ... ... hereby rejected. 31. emsp A copy of this order shall be placed in each of the appeal files. 32. emsp Before parting with cases, we must place on record the invaluable assistance we have received from the learned Counsels of both sides in these cases.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 267

    ... ...
    ... ... ion for die opinion formed by the competent authority. 10. In my opinion no case has been made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. As there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 257

    ... ...
    ... ... ce in the contention of the appellants that the lower authorities have fixed the fine at an excessive level. 15. In the result, we reject the various contentions made by the appellants, uphold the impugned Order dated 7-3-1984 and dismiss the appeal.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 84

    ... ...
    ... ... he petitioner within one week from the date of communication of this order. 22. Let a plain copy of this order and judgment countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned advocates appearing for the parties concerned.


  • 1984 (7) TMI 83

    ... ...
    ... ... Such certificate shall be issued forthwith upon payment by the petitioners of the assessed duty. 11. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the Advocates appearing for the parties concerned.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 257

    ... ...
    ... ... e open to the Court to moderate the question of cost of supplying copies since the right could not extend to copies “free of cost” as envisaged by the Code. 17. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on July 11, 1984.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 256

    ... ...
    ... ... collateral purposes, the mere exercise of discretion is not an issue involving any point of law to merit a reference to the High Court. 7. As none of the questions raised by the applicant involves any point of law, the application is rejected.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 255

    ... ...
    ... ... ng duty paid by the appellant between 1962-1965 and shall within 2 weeks thereafter refund to the appellant the countervailing duty found payable. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The respondents shall pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 250

    ... ...
    ... ... i of IOC in the proceedings has not been questioned before the lower authorities. It is too late in the day to raise this question, apart from the fact that, in our view, IOC has locus standi. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 248

    ... ...
    ... ... aim refund of the duty paid by them. 10. In the result for the reasons stated above I allow both these appeals and direct the consequential relief to the appellants in both the appeals within four months from the date of communication of this order.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 247

    ... ...
    ... ... m 32. They would be classifiable under Tariff Item 68 CET. However, no countervailing duty would be chargeable in view of the fact that such duty on imported goods was levied only w.e.f. 1-3-1979. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 244

    ... ...
    ... ... chedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the purpose of c.v. duty and special excise duty at 50% plus 5%. 21. We find no ground for interfering in the findings of the authority below and we, therefore, rejected this appeal.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 242

    ... ...
    ... ... ther heading in Chapter 84. We have already arrived at the finding that the subject goods are rightly classifiable under Chapter 39. Hence Heading 84.65 has no application to the present case. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 241

    ... ...
    ... ... eligible for assessment under heading 84.66, the benefit of such assessment will not be available in the present case since the consumable stores did not form part of the registered contract. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 239

    ... ...
    ... ... rden on them. As the Appellate Collector has rightly observed, the proper forum for agitation of this matter is not quasi-judicial authorities functioning under the Act. 9. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 238

    ... ...
    ... ... intermediate goods for further manufacture of moulds (the finished articles), they appropriately fall under heading 38.01/19 (4) of the CTA and not under Chapter 68. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.


  • 1984 (6) TMI 237

    ... ...
    ... ... e circumstances, we set aside the penalty imposed by the Collector on the firm. However, in the light of our findings regarding the seized gold ornaments, we reduce the penalty on the 2 partners of the firm from ₹ 500 each to ₹ 100 each.


 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.