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

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 Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Software Export Tax Exemption Case — ITAT's Factual Findings on Export Turnover and Profit Computation Upheld. The court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the ITAT's findings were factual and based on evidence.

12 Feb 2014

The case involves three appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appell...

High Court

WRIT PETITION NO.19366 OF 2024

9 Apr 2025

...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes DGFT Order Cancelling Advance Authorisation and EPCG Licences for Optical Fibre Manufacturer — Violation of Natural Justice and Non-Application of Mind. Petitioner's licences restored as cancellation was based on irrelevant considerations and without proper hearing.

20 Jan 2022

The petitioner, Ashwini Ashish Dighe, proprietor of Sunteck Telecommunications, a manufacturer of optical fibres, filed a writ petition challenging th...

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...

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...

High Court

High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944. CESTAT Orders Not Appealable to High Court as They Do Not Involve Questions of Law.

23 Nov 2017

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs filed two appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against orders of the Customs, Excis...

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

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Denial of Advance Authorization Benefits for Export of Pharmaceutical Products. Court holds that denial of benefits under Para 4.1.5 of Foreign Trade Policy on ground of non-fulfillment of condition of minimum value addition is unsustainable as the condition was not applicable to the product in question.

1 Aug 2016

The petitioners, Sandoz Private Limited and Lupin Limited, are pharmaceutical companies engaged in the manufacture and export of pharmaceutical produc...

23 24 25 26 27

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