Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing 5 The Decision Of This Court That ... vs . M/S.Nepc India Ltd. (A.I.R. 1999 Sc ... on 9 April, 2013

Manish Kiritkumar Shah vs L S Ramnani on 28 December, 2016

According to Shri Oza, even the subsequent decision in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Page 6 of 13 HC-NIC Page 6 of 13 Created On Thu Dec 29 00:50:48 IST 2016 R/CR.MA/10883/2008 CAV JUDGMENT State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (CJ) Gujarat 1095 rendered by the Division Bench in Special Civil Application No. 6223 of 2011 dated 6/09/2012 which has been heavily relied upon by Shri Rushabh Shah would not apply.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Anant Glass Emporium Pvt Ltd vs Cgst & Ce Kanpur on 2 April, 2024

iii. I also confirm the demand of interest due on the aforesaid amount and order for recovery of the same from the aforesaid party under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; iv. I impose a penalty of Rs.200 per day or 2% of the Tax amount per month, whichever is higher, upto 09th May, 2008, upon the aforesaid party under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, for failure to pay Service Tax under Section 68 of the said Act read with rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as per the provisions existing at the relevant time. For the period from 10th May 2008 onwards, no penalty is being imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to the amendment in Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, v. I also impose a penalty of Rs 200/- (two hundred only) per day, till the registration is sought, upon the aforesaid party, under Section 77 (1) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994, for failure to obtain registration as per the provision of Section 69 of the said Act read with rule 4 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as per the provisions existing at the relevant lime;
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Vadivelu vs The Director Of School Education on 22 November, 2019

3.2. The only contention made on behalf of the appellant/Management is that the first respondent had not even made a request for re-employment after superannuation and therefore, he cannot make any complaint against the appellant/Management. But, similar contention was rejected by the Division Bench in the S. Sundaram v. Secretary, C.S.I. 11/15 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.21201 of 2019 Diocese of Madras (supra ), whereunder it is held as follow:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document
1