Search Results for "duty paid"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "duty paid"

6700 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 6700 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Stamp Duty Despite Delay in Filing Application Under Section 48(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act. Limitation Bars Remedy Not Right, State Cannot Retain Double Stamp Duty on Same Transaction.

27 Aug 2024

The petitioner, Nanji Dana Patel, entered into a development agreement with Keshav Krishanlal Syngal on 3 March 2014, paying stamp duty of Rs.78,65,00...

High Court

High Court of Judicature at Bombay Considers Writ Petition Seeking Refund of Stamp Duty on Unexecuted Instrument Under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Court examines whether payment of stamp duty without execution of an instrument constitutes a valid charge and whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked for refund beyond the statutory limitation period, focusing on the definition of ‘instrument’ under Section 2(l) and the scheme of Sections 47 and 48.

12 Dec 2025

The writ petition raised the question whether the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Quashing Stamp Duty Order in Seawoods Project Development Agreement — Lease Deed Not Liable to Stamp Duty as Conveyance Under Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The court held that a development agreement-cum-lease deed executed by CIDCO for a 60-year term is a lease, not a conveyance, and is chargeable under Article 36 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

28 Sep 2012

The petitioners, Larsen and Toubro Ltd and its subsidiary, challenged an order dated 16 July 2011 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (r...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Adjudicates Writ Petition Challenging Constitutional Validity of Section 88 of Finance Act, 2004. Petitioner, a tyre manufacturer, contended that the cut-off date of 1 April 2000 for utilization of Additional Excise Duty credit is arbitrary and violates Article 14.

23 Dec 2014

The petitioners, CEAT Limited, engaged in the manufacture of tyres, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging t...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Revenue's Petition Against Rebate Claim on Exported Inputs/Capital Goods. Reversal of Cenvat Credit Does Not Constitute Payment of Duty for Rebate Under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

23 Mar 2011

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India dated 4 June 2...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Challenge to Stamp Duty Demand on Marine-cum-Erection Policies. Policies for construction of rigs classified as Sea Insurance under Article 47A(ii) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

7 Jun 2006

The petitioners, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and its Divisional Manager, challenged a demand for stamp duty on six insurance policies issued in favor ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Partly Allows Writ Petition Against Settlement Commission in Anti-Dumping Duty Case; Sets Aside Adjustment of Time-Barred Demand and Imposition of Penalty on Partner. Settlement Commission Cannot Allow Recovery of Duty Beyond Five-Year Limitation Period Under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962, and Penalty on Partner Requires Specific Show Cause Notice.

4 Aug 2017

The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in importing solvents and chemicals, challenged an order of the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals by Manufacturers in Sikkim Seeking Exemption from Education Cess and NCCD. Exemption Notification Strictly Construed; Cesses Not Covered as They Were Imposed by Separate Finance Acts After the Notification.

19 Sep 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed two civil appeals filed by M/s. Unicorn Industries and Akshay Ispat and Ferro Alloys Private Limited against the judgment ...

8 9 10 11 12

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)