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.

4 results for “section 68”+ Section 2(30)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,743Mumbai4,903Bangalore1,656Kolkata1,222Chennai1,184Ahmedabad1,115Jaipur1,019Hyderabad858Karnataka705Pune597Chandigarh512Indore497Surat463Cochin265Raipur256Visakhapatnam238Rajkot218Agra172Nagpur153Cuttack145Amritsar141Lucknow140Telangana115Guwahati99SC86Ranchi84Jabalpur79Calcutta75Jodhpur72Allahabad71Patna47Dehradun46Panaji38Varanasi24Rajasthan14Orissa9Kerala7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati2Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Penalty2Addition to Income2

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

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

M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-008190-008190 - 2003Supreme Court12 Mar 2015

Bench: Processing & Hence A Substantial Increase In The Value Of These Inputs Has Escaped Payment Of Duty On Account Of Value Addition In Such Inputs After Processing. More Specifically, What Was Alleged Was That Various Spare Parts Relatable To Motor Vehicles That Were Manufactured By The Appellant & Were Procured By It In The Form Of Bumpers, Grills, Etc., On Which The Process Of Electro Deposition Coating, Namely, Edc Took Place (Which Was In The Nature Of Anti-Rust So That The Shelf Life Of The Said Bumpers, Grills, Etc., Would Be Generally Increased) Have Escaped Duty On

68,07,499/- and proceeded also to impose an equivalent penalty of the same amount with the caveat that 25 per cent of the penalty amount would be payable if it is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of the order. The appeal filed before Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Page

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