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 17clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,694Mumbai5,662Bangalore1,860Chennai1,358Kolkata1,308Ahmedabad1,253Jaipur1,076Hyderabad974Pune733Karnataka726Surat634Indore594Chandigarh581Cochin327Raipur315Visakhapatnam275Rajkot272Nagpur202Amritsar171Cuttack164Agra163Lucknow158Telangana132Guwahati130SC90Jodhpur85Patna82Allahabad81Ranchi77Calcutta74Dehradun55Panaji44Varanasi25Jabalpur24Rajasthan14Orissa10Kerala9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati3Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

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 of the Finance Act, 1996, special additional duty (SAD) levied under Section 3A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Anti-dumping duty (ADD) levied under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 during the period June 1998 to August 1998, which were exempt from duty vide (i) 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT Notifications No. 30/97 Cus dated

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 Court
07 May 2015
Section 2

68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.” It was held: 17 Page 18 JUDGMENT “13. Manufacture thus involves series of processes. Process

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

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

Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the aforesaid demand was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in original dated 13.02.2002, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal of the respondent. Next level appeal filed by the respondent before the CESTAT, Bangalore, however, yielded results favourable to the respondent, as this