Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)

Jansons Textile Processors vs Salem on 11 July, 2018

rule 3 (i) and sub-rule 3 (ii) are separated by a semicolon ( ; ) followed by the disjunctive ‚or‛. The use of semicolon ( ; ), the punctuation mark ... separated not by just a particle ‚or‛ but also by a semicolon (;), thus creating an additional wall for conveying mutual exclusivity between
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wearit Global Ltd vs Udaipur on 2 August, 2018

rule 3 (i) and sub-rule 3 (ii) are separated by a semicolon ( ; ) followed by the disjunctive ‚or‛. The use of semicolon ( ; ), the punctuation mark ... separated not by just a particle ‚or‛ but also by a semicolon (;), thus creating an additional wall for conveying mutual exclusivity between
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs vs Spice Communication on 24 August, 2005

inasmuch as after the expression radio broadcasting or television, a semicolon needs to appear as the latter description viz., transmission apparatus incorporating reception apparatus ... notification. As such, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) decision in construing semicolon after the word "Television" at SI. No. 267 of Notification
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1