Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner, Central Excise Chandigarh Versus M/s Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

2016 (5) TMI 1215 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Imposition of penalty - Delay in payment of duty - Whether penalty imposable under Rule 27 or under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- in view of the judgment made by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate ORDER Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral) Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the appellant, stated at the Bar that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is taken on record. He has also made available copy of the judgment (supra), made part of the file. 2. We have gone through the judgment (supra) and the issue involved in the instant appeal and are of the considered view that the issue involved in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cases 672, has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by other High Courts. It is profitable to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: 7. The primary argument of the Defendant Appellant is that it had received r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ere not entities on the market. However, the Defendant-Appellant has conceded that it commenced user of the trademark ROFOL only from 16.10.2004 onwards. Furthermore, it is important to note that litigation was initiated by Plaintiff-Respondents, not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another Hi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version