Disposed

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, v. Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

Bombay HC10 Oct 2016CEXA/78/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of five Central Excise appeals withdrawn by the Revenue following a circular limiting appeals to sums above a specified monetary threshold.

What did the court decide?

The appeals stand disposed of as withdrawn. The Court expressed no opinion on the questions of law or the validity of the circular.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

7 to 11-CEXA.20.2012+.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2012

¶4

The Commissioner of Central } Excise } Appellant versus Tela Equipments Pvt. Ltd. } Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2012

¶7

The Commissioner of Central } Excise, Customs and } Service Tax } Appellant versus Lakeland Chemicals (India) } Ltd. } Respondent

¶8

WITH

¶9

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2013

¶10

The Commissioner of Central } Excise, Customs and } Service Tax } Appellant versus Hutatma Kisan Ahir } Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana } Limited } Respondent

¶11

WITH

¶12

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2013

¶13

The Commissioner of Central } Excise } Appellant versus M/s. Safex Fire Services Ltd. } Respondent

¶14

WITH

¶15

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2014

¶16

The Commissioner of Central } Excise and Service Tax } Appellant versus M/s. Bhima SSK Leagar } Respondent

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶19

7 to 11-CEXA.20.2012+.doc

¶20

Mr. M. Dwivedi with Ms. Shalaka GujarKarande for the appellant in CEXA/20/2012 and CEXA/83/2012.

¶21

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the appellants in CEX/78/2013, CEXA/200/2013 and CEXA/11/2014.

¶22

Mr. Vinay N. Ansurkar i/b. M/s. Legal Solutions for respondent in CEXA/83/2012.

¶23

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED :- OCTOBER 10, 2016

¶24

P.C. :-

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that

¶26

the Revenue may be allowed to withdraw these appeals.

¶27

They are withdrawn in the light of the circular issued by the

¶28

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 these appeals as withdrawn.

¶29

We have found that the Revenue is withdrawing the appeals

¶30

though admitted on substantial questions of law. It is for the Revenue to decide and withdraw the appeals based on its circular,

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶33

7 to 11-CEXA.20.2012+.doc

¶34

but we clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the questions

¶35

of law nor on the legality and validity of the circular.

¶36

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

¶37

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

J.V.Salunke,PA

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, v. Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, v. Hutatma Kisan Ahir Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

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

The Nashik Merchants Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs M/S. Raka Agro Agencies, through Prop. and Ors.

Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Juhu Tara Koli Jamat Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Gurleen Sahney Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane II Commissionerate , Mumbai Vs M/S Neon Laboratories Ltd., Thane

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi, Mumbai Vs M/S Morgan Stanley