Disposed

The Commisssioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate v. M/S Mahankali Ssk Ltd.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2016CEXA/223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple appeals by the Revenue against customs and central excise orders were allowed to be withdrawn by the appellants following a circular regarding monetary limits for pressing appeals. The court disposed of the matter without expressing any opinion on the underlying legal questions or the circular's validity.

What did the court decide?

All appeals were allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed for allowing the withdrawal request.

The Commisssioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

CUAPP16.08.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2008

¶4

The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai & Anr. .... Appellant vs CIPLA Ltd. .... Respondent

¶5

AND CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2010

¶6

The Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai & Anr. .... Appellant vs Shri Mahendra Shah .... Respondent

¶7

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2013

¶8

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate .... Appellant vs Shri Tatyasaheb Kore Warana SSK Ltd. .... Respondent

¶9

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2013

¶10

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate .... Appellant vs Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. .... Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2013

¶13

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate.... Appellant vs M/s. Kisanveer Satra SSK Ltd. .... Respondent

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

CUAPP16.08.doc

¶16

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2013

¶17

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate.... Appellant vs Shri Gurudatta Sugars Ltd. .... Respondent

¶18

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2013 The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate.... Appellant vs M/s. Mahankali SSK Ltd. .... Respondent

¶19

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2014

¶20

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax Raigad Commissionerate .... Appellant vs M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. .... Respondent

¶21

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 297 OF 2015

¶22

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman Commissionerate .... Appellant vs Jayesh Patel .... Respondent

¶23

AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (LODG) NO. 311 OF 2015

¶24

The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax .... Appellant vs Navratanlal Sharma .... Respondent

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

CUAPP16.08.doc

¶27

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the Appellant in all Appeals except CEXA No.144 of 2014.

¶28

Mr. Phiroze Merchant i/b M/s. Apex Law Partners for the Respondent in CUAPP No.16 of 2008.

¶29

Mr. A.P. Patil i/b M/s. V.M. Doiphode & Co. for the Respondent No.2 in CUAPP No.1 of 2010.

¶30

Mr. Sonu Tandon for the Respondent No.3 in CUAPP No.1 of 2010.

¶31

Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b M/s. PDS Legal for the Respondent in CEXA 144 of 2014.

¶32

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶33

MONDAY, 25TH JULY, 2016

¶34

P.C:

¶35

Mr. Jetly, on instructions, states that the Revenue may be allowed to withdraw these appeals.

¶36

They are withdrawn in the light of the Circular issued by the Revenue which determines the limit of monetary sums or the sum above which alone the appeals of the Revenue are to be pressed. Every appeal involving a sum mentioned below this limit would not be pressed and on the Revenue's request the Court may dismiss it as withdrawn.

¶37

CUAPP16.08.doc

¶38

We have found that the Revenue is withdrawing the appeals though admitted on substantial questions of law. It is for the Revenue to decide and withdraw the appeals based on its Circular, but we clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the questions of law nor on the legality and validity of the Circular.

¶39

4 . By clarifying as above, all these appeals are allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed of as such.

¶40

DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶41

Page 4 of 4

The Commisssioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate v. M/S Mahankali Ssk Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commisssioner Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate v. M/S Mahankali Ssk Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Asis Logistics Limited and 7ORS. Vs State Bank of India

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Union of India and Anr.

Khanna and Co.Steel Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Ors.

Commissioner Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Navratanlal Sharma

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, Vs Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

The Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad Commissionerate Vs M/S. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd.