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 2(24)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,564Mumbai4,715Bangalore1,615Kolkata1,228Chennai1,185Ahmedabad1,077Jaipur939Hyderabad813Karnataka697Pune615Indore509Surat493Chandigarh483Cochin317Raipur261Visakhapatnam225Rajkot202Cuttack157Nagpur147Agra146Lucknow145Amritsar135Guwahati124Telangana120Ranchi90SC78Calcutta73Jabalpur73Allahabad67Jodhpur65Patna64Panaji44Dehradun29Varanasi24Rajasthan13Orissa11Kerala9Uttarakhand4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

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

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

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

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

24%. 4) The Revenue issued show cause notice demanding differential duty amounting to Rs.8,12,194. After the reply was given by the respondent along with the material placed by it before the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority passed the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.1999 for the period December, 1998 to April, 1999 confirming the differential duty of Rs.8