Search Results for "customs tariff classification"

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 Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Incredible Dying Declaration...
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 182 IPC for Lack of Val...

Search Results for "customs tariff classification"

126 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 126 result(s)

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...

High Court

Bombay High Court Holds Appeal Under Section 35G of Central Excise Act Maintainable on Limitation Issue Even When Valuation/Rate of Duty Not Disputed. The Court ruled that the question of limitation is a distinct legal issue not relating to assessment, valuation, or rate of duty, and thus appeals challenging only the time-bar aspect are maintainable before the High Court under Section 35G.

23 Dec 2021

The case arose from a Central Excise Appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Belapur, against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Arbitration Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Excise Duty Reimbursement Dispute. Contractual interpretation of purchase order clause for reimbursement of excise duty paid by contractor to Railways.

29 Nov 2018

The Petitioner, M/s Creative Engineers, filed an arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an a...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for 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 ...

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

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Show-Cause Notice Under Section 74 of CGST Act for Lack of Jurisdiction — DGGI Officer Not Authorized as Proper Officer. The court held that only officers specifically authorized by the Commissioner can issue notices under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the DGGI officer lacked such authorization.

16 Jul 2025

The petitioner, M/s NCS Pearson Inc., a Minnesota-based corporation, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India bef...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Writ Petitions Against Re-Assessment Order Under KVAT Act on Software Implementation Services and Sales Tax. The Assessee Challenged a Demand of Rs.49 Crore and Sought Declarations of Unconstitutionality for Sections of KVAT Act and Finance Act, 1994, but Constitutional Arguments Were Not Pressed Before the Court.

9 Feb 2015

The assessee, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, was engaged in development and sale of software, including Finacle universal banki...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Union of India's Appeals in Excise Duty Exemption Withdrawal Case — Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Cannot Bar Withdrawal of Exemption in Public Interest. Public Interest Overrides Individual Interest When Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Is Based on Health Hazards.

19 Sep 2019

The Supreme Court of India heard three civil appeals filed by the Union of India against judgments of the Sikkim High Court and the Gauhati High Court...

High Court

Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment on Challenge to DRI's Investigation and Letters Rogatory in Coal Import Over-Valuation Case. Petitioner Argues Non-Cognizable Offences Require Magistrate Order under CrPC, Rendering Letters Rogatory Invalid.

17 Oct 2019

The present writ petition before the Bombay High Court arises from an investigation initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) against...

9 10 11 12 13

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