Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 463 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd vs Govt Of India & on 13 August, 2013

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Port) on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Port) on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Commissioner-Kolkata(Port) on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotect Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotch Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emami Agrotech Ltd vs Kolkata-Port on 14 November, 2024

conditions of debit of BCD to the scrip and the availment of drawback with respect to the subsequent exports out of the imported inputs were also prevalent in notification no 96/2004- Cus dt 17.09.2004 and notification no 32/2005-Cus The DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but learned Appellate Commissioner has himself accepted at para 16 & 17 of the impugned Orders that the DEPB Scheme is similar to the MEIS/SEIS Scheme and that the levy of SWS has replaced EC but erroneously relies upon Circular No. 5/2006-Cus dt. 31.01.2005, which has been held invalid and contrary Section 81 and Section 84 of the Finance Act. 2004 and quashed by the High Court in the Gujarat Ambuja Exports Case (supra) At this stage, it would also be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 94 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004, which reads as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next