amount of Rs.4,22,16,175.73
under the Target Plus Scheme.
3] Case of the Petitioner is that it is a partnership firm constituted ... policy, Government of India
introduced a scheme on 31.08.2004 called the Target Plus Scheme which
was made effective from 01.04.2004. Objective of the Target Plus
Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by them by debiting under Target Plus
scheme as per notification No.32/2005-CUS dt.08.04.2005. Show ... credit of 4% SAD paid by them by debiting
under the Target Plus scheme instead of paying in cash. This show cause
notice was confirmed
final product. The appellant had imported Beta Napthol
under DEEC and Target Plus Scheme. The said imported goods was removed
under Job work challan ... that since the Beta
Napthol was cleared under DEEC and Target Plus Scheme under Notification
No. 93/2004-Customs dated 10.09.2004 and Notification
products of petitioner-Firm i.e. Jawan Gold, Yasmin Plus, Royal Flower,
Proton Plus, Target, Elix Gold, Swipe, Goal, Hot Sun, Avenger, Red Bus,
Nutri
order dated 27.10.2015 passed by this Court with
regard to Target Plus Scheme for the export made in the year 2005-
2006.
The applicant ... weeks’ time to the respondents to allow
duty credit script under Target Plus Scheme failing which they may
file an affidavit explaining their conduct
petitioner for
grant of Duty Free Credit Entitlement under Target Plus Scheme for the year
2005-06 as per the Foreign Trade Policy
said website,
whether euphemistically termed as "passive plus" or "interactive" was
specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial
claim more than the
Cost Petroleum agreed at US $ 198.43 million plus US $ 65.95 million (towards
exceptions).
(ix) The Government raised counter claims equivalent ... Cost Petroleum, in excess of the agreed amount of US $
198.43 million plus US $ 65.95 million.
(x) On 18.08.2008, the disputes were referred to arbitration
Vigilance Committee fell upon Ms. Poornima. So, she was presumably a target of
displeasure.
Page 2 of 35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ... writ of quo warranto alleging that
Ms.Poornima had not passed the Plus Two examination and was, therefore, not
qualified to obtain a Law degree
Vigilance Committee fell upon Ms. Poornima. So, she was presumably a target of
displeasure.
Page 2 of 35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ... writ of quo warranto alleging that
Ms.Poornima had not passed the Plus Two examination and was, therefore, not
qualified to obtain a Law degree
