Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: customs excise and service tax appellate tribunal cestat mumbai Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.026 seconds)

Dec 05 1986 (TRI)

Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-05-1986

Reported in : (1987)(11)LC287Tri(Mum.)bai

..... is the case of shah bahulal khimji air 1981 sc 1986. in this case the supreme court was dealing with the provisions of the civil procedure code and the scope of letters patent appeal to the high courts. in para 113 of this judgment, the supreme court set out three categories of judgments, namely final, preliminary and intermediary or interlocutory. in this judgment ..... and anr., air 1981 supreme court 1786, their lordships of the supreme court were considering as to the scope of the expression 'judgment' appearing in clause 15 of the letters patent. after reviewing the various decisions, his lordship mr. justice fazal ali for himself and on behalf of his lordship mr. justice a. varadarajan observed that a judgment can be of ..... finality are clearly specified in clauses (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and have already been held by us to be judgments within the meaning of the letters patent and, therefore, appealable. there may also be interlocutory orders which are not covered by order 43, rule 1 but which also possess the characteristics and trappings of finality in that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1986 (TRI)

Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-10-1986

Reported in : (1986)(8)LC648Tri(Mum.)bai

..... of precision steel fasteners and ors. v. union of india and ors. 1980 elt 693. he further argued that a review could be made only if the earlier order was patently wrong. citing the government of india's decision in the case of crown aspo rope manufacturing co., 1982 elt 660, the advocate argued that the government of india did not .....

Tag this Judgment!

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