Search Results for "Customs tariff"

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"

312 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 312 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside Adjudication Orders for Breach of Natural Justice. Non-Compliance with Tribunal's Remand Directions on Disclosure of Test Reports Amounts to Denial of Fair Hearing Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

13 Oct 2005

The writ petition under Article 226 arose from a dispute over the classification of a product known as 'CHOCOS' manufactured by Kellogg India Private ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Hears Income Tax Appeal Concerning Deduction Under Section 80IA for Interest Income from Fixed Deposits Linked to Container Terminal Operations. The core legal question centred on whether interest earned on fixed deposits maintained for mandatory crane replacement and disputed tariff amounts constituted profits derived from eligible infrastructure business.

26 Aug 2025

The matter before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay concerned an income tax appeal and a writ petition filed by Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd....

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging CESTAT Order Rejecting Recall of Fraud Finding in CENVAT Credit Case. Court holds that CESTAT's finding of mis-statement and fraud was not a reviewable error and that the Tribunal had inherent power to impose costs for abuse of process.

25 Mar 2021

The petitioner, Essel Propack Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing plastic tubes, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o...

High Court

High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Dismisses Revenue's Challenge to Tribunal Order Quashing Penalty on Directors in Central Excise Case — No Vicarious Liability Without Evidence of Personal Involvement Under Central Excise Act, 1944.

23 Jun 2017

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appe...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Assessee's Appeal in Central Excise Case: Cutting and Grooving of Aluminum Composite Panels Does Not Amount to Manufacture. Process of cutting, grooving, and routing ACPs for facade cladding does not bring into existence a new product with distinct name, character, or use under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

27 May 2026

The appellant, M/s Alupuro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd., is a construction contractor that imports pre-coated Aluminum Composite Panels (ACPs) and under...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows JSW Steel's Challenge to Electricity Duty Demand on Captive Consumption. Held that electricity generated from captive power plant and consumed for own use is not 'sold' and thus not exigible to electricity duty under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958.

2 Apr 2026

The petitioner, M/s. JSW Steel Limited, a company engaged in steel manufacturing, operates a captive power plant (CPP) at its factory in Raigad, Mahar...

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 Allows Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of ARE-1 Forms as Proof of Export Under Advance Authorisation Scheme. Court Holds That ARE-1 Forms Are Valid Proof of Export Under Paragraph 4.25 of Handbook of Procedures 2009-14 and Quashes Show Cause Notice.

12 Sep 2017

The petitioner, Larsen & Toubro Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, challenged a Letter dated 1-12-2016 and a Show C...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Central Excise Case — Process Not Amounting to Manufacture Under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Court Holds That Internal Order Deciding Jurisdiction Is Not Appealable Under Section 35 of the Act.

14 Nov 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appe...

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 Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for 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 ...

22 23 24 25 26

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