Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
M/S.Manali Petrochemical Limited vs The Addl. Director General Of Foreign ... on 16 September, 2019 cites

Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda vs Indian Petro Chemicals on 11 December, 1996

'The question in these appeals is covered in favour of the appellant by the order of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals [1997 (92) E.L.T. 13]. Where there are two exemption notifications that cover the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption notification which gives him greater relief, regardless of the fact that that notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

M/S. Agnice Fire Protection Limited vs The Additional General Of Foreign Trade on 5 April, 2019

)], M/s.Agnice Fire Protection Limited Vs. The Additional General of Foreign Trade Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade [2019 (5) TMI 86] and SAME DEUTZ-FAHR INDIA (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2017(12) TMI 1114]), I see no reason to relegate the petitioner to alternate statutory remedy.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

M/S. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 October, 2016

9. Revenue also argues that that the writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the fact that the impugned order is subject to a revision in terms of Regulation 16 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act) 1992. However, since the issue arising for consideration is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra) followed consistently by this Court (see Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2017 (346) E.L.T. 12 (Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document
1