Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,091 Mumbai4,456 Bangalore1,569 Kolkata1,098 Chennai1,094 Ahmedabad1,015 Jaipur899 Hyderabad748 Karnataka697 Pune562 Indore456 Chandigarh455 Surat447 Cochin272 Raipur253 Rajkot205 Visakhapatnam205 Nagpur141 Agra140 Lucknow138 Amritsar119 Cuttack119 Telangana118 Guwahati97 SC83 Ranchi78 Calcutta77 Allahabad68 Jodhpur58 Patna53 Panaji39 Jabalpur28 Dehradun25 Varanasi21 Kerala10 Rajasthan10 Orissa9 Uttarakhand3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2 Gauhati2 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 Tripura1 Andhra Pradesh1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

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

28. Special customs duty is levied under Section 68 of the Finance Act No.2 of 1996, which reads as follows

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

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(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