BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 12(1)(C)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,932Mumbai5,106Bangalore1,778Kolkata1,343Chennai1,142Ahmedabad1,141Jaipur1,028Hyderabad752Karnataka702Pune600Chandigarh540Surat509Indore474Cochin326Raipur264Rajkot230Visakhapatnam212Nagpur161Cuttack153Lucknow153Amritsar152Agra139Guwahati130Telangana109SC91Calcutta74Jodhpur64Allahabad59Ranchi52Patna49Panaji42Dehradun33Varanasi24Jabalpur19Orissa12Rajasthan12Kerala11A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.A. No.-007189-007189 - 2005Supreme Court04 Aug 2015
Section 12Section 18Section 3ASection 68Section 9A

68. Special duties of customs. – (1) In the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, or in that Schedule, as amended from time to time, there shall be levied and collected as a special duty of customs, an amount equal to two per cent of the value of the goods as determined in accordance

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE HYDERABAD vs. M/S SARVOTHAM CARE LIMITED

C.A. No.-004480-004480 - 2005Supreme Court14 May 2015
Section 11A
Section 4A

12 of 28 Page 13 JUDGMENT putting 1% to 1½% of 'Ketoconazole', the assessee was itself treating the said product as shampoo only and not as Pharmaceutical product. He concluded his arguments by submitting that the judgment of this Court in B.P.L. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodra5 squarely covered the issue involved in this case. 13) We have considered

M/S. SERVO-MED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside

C.A. No.-000583-000583 - 2005Supreme Court07 May 2015
Section 2

Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, there is no mention of the test of integral or inextricable process and found that the wrong test had been applied to arrive at the wrong result. 5. The CESTAT in turn set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) observing: “An Article with distinct brand name