Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: kolkata Year: 2001 Page 12 of about 112 results (0.130 seconds)

Jul 10 2001 (TRI)

Assembly of God Hospital and Vs. Cc(Airport), Calcutta

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Jul-10-2001

..... , race, religion or language free of cost to an average of at least 40% of their outdoor patients and free of cost to all patients belonging to families with and income of less than rs. 500/- per month. the above demand has been confirmed on the ground that the conditions of the notification have not been fulfilled by the appellants. for ..... of ct scan research centre pvt. ltd. v. cc, new delhi-2001 (45) rlt 29 (cegat-delhi) laying down that the limitation as provided under section 28 of the customs act has to be applied and it is not permissible to issue a show cause notice beyond the period of vie years from the date of import of the goods in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2001 (TRI)

Jainendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

Decided on : Oct-31-2001

1. nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants. accordingly i have heard shri d.k. bhowmik, ld. jdr for the revenue and have gone through the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals), who rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the stay order dt. 18.1.2001 passed by him directing the appellant to deposit an sum of rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) towards penalty in terms of the provisions of section 129e of the customs act.2. the appellant in their memo of appeal have contended that after the stay order dt. 18.1.2001 was passed by the commissioner (appeals), they moved a modification application on 23.2.2001 and thereafter on 23.3.2001 enclosing therewith a copy of the certificate of income issued by the anchal adhikari, sadar, patna showing the appellant's annual income as rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand) only. the said miscellaneous application filed by the appellant for modification of the stay order were not considered by the commissioner (appeals), who outrightly dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. inasmuch as the said miscellaneous application filed by the appellant have not been considered i set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the commissioner (appeals) for passing of fresh order on the appellant's miscellaneous application for modification of stay and thereafter dispose of the appeal. stay petition and appeal are disposed of in above terms.

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //