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 35(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,597Mumbai3,803Bangalore1,432Chennai924Ahmedabad903Jaipur827Kolkata814Karnataka681Hyderabad667Indore473Pune444Chandigarh439Surat367Cochin259Raipur240Visakhapatnam192Rajkot186Lucknow135Nagpur125Telangana110Cuttack108Amritsar93Guwahati84Ranchi77Jabalpur70Calcutta66SC66Allahabad61Jodhpur48Agra46Patna45Varanasi20Dehradun19Rajasthan11Panaji11Orissa10Kerala6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Uttarakhand3Tripura1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1A.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 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

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

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

1-3-1975, the introduction of Item 68 makes a difference to the interpretation of Item 26-AA. This is not correct. Item 68 was only intended as a residuary item. It covers goods not expressly mentioned in any of the earlier items. If, as assumed by the Tribunal, the poles manufactured were rightly classified under Item

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