Disposed

M/S. Priti Polycoated and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2007WP/7047/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appearing from a remand order of the Tribunal, this court set aside the impugned decision to the extent it left two issues undetermined: manufacturing status of laminated fabrics and entitlement to notification benefits. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for findings of fact on these specific issues along with other remanded points.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside on two issues; matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for recording findings and deciding issues.

M/S. Priti Polycoated and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Bombay HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7047 OF 2007

¶4

M/s.Priti Polycoated & Anr.

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Shri R. Shridharan with Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for Petitioner Mr. Y.S. Bhate with Mr. Srinivasan and Mr. H.P. Chaturvedi for Union of India.

¶10

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 29TH NOVEMBER, 2007

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Rule. Heard forthwith. By the impugned order dated

¶13

.		.		.
18th	June,	2007	the	learned	Tribunal	has	been	pleased	to
remand	the	matter		to	the	Comm	issioner	(Appeals)	for

¶14

redetermination of assessable value, duty amount, limitation

¶15

and penalty.

¶16

In so far as issue pertaining to manufacture it has

¶17

been	contend	ed that	the	Com	mission	er (A	ppeals)	has	recorded
a finding		and the	said	finding	has	bee	n	upheld	without
adequate r	easons.	In	so	far		as	the	Notificatio	n is
concerned,the		issue was	not	con	sidered	by	the	Co	mmissioner
(Appeals)	as	apparently	it	was	not	raised.		The	learned
Tribunal,	however,	has	held		that	the	products	are	not
entitled	to	the ben	efit	under	the	Not	ification.		Various
submissions	had	been	advan	ced	before	us	on	both	those
aspects	of	the matter	.In	our	opinio	n it	will	be	appropriate

¶18

that	the	matter	goes	back	to	the	Commissioner	for	recording
a	finding	of	fact	as	to	whether	lamination	of	fabrics
amounts	to	manufa	cture	and	secondl	y as	to whether	the	said

¶19

product would be entitled to the benefit of the

¶20

Notification.

¶21

. Considering the above,the impugned order to that

¶22

extent		in	so	far	as	the	Petition	ers	are	conce	rned is	also
set	aside	and	the	ma	tter	is	remande	d	to	the	Commissioner	for
deciding		these	two		issues		along	with		the	other	issues

¶23

already remanded by the Tribunal. Rule made absolute

¶24

accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶25

(R.S.MOHITE, J.)

¶26

(F.I. REBELLO, J)

M/S. Priti Polycoated and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Priti Polycoated and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs Royal Agencies

The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs Royal Agencies

The Commissioner of Sales Tax Maharashtra State Mumbai Vs M/S. Piem Hotels Ltd.

shri naresh amritlal shah prop of m/s naresh enterprises Vs commissions rof customs (export) and Anr.

Vikram Ispat and Anr. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

commissioner of customs (iport) Vs m/s balu india