Allowed

The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Anr. v. M/S Mine Safety Appliances (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2016CUAPP/98/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench allowed Central Excise AppealsNos. 65/2004, 67/2004, 36/2007, 210/2007, 91/2012, 163/2013 and Customs Appeal No. 98/2007 to be withdrawn by Revenue based on its internal administrative circular without expressing opinion on underlying legal questions.

What did the court decide?

Appeals stood disposed of as withdrawn by the Revenue.

The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Anr. Vs M/S Mine Safety Appliances (India) Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2-CEXA.65.2004.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALN NO. 65 OF 2004

¶4

The Commissioner of Central } Excise, Mumbai – V } Appellant versus M/s. Chandralok Fabrics } Respondent WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2006 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2007 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2007

¶5

WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007

¶6

WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2011 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2012

¶7

WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2013

¶8

WITH

¶9

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2007

¶10

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the appellant in Central Excise Appeal Nos. 65/2004, 67/2004, 36/2007, 210/2007, 91/2012, 163/2013.

¶11

Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the appellant in CUAPP/98/2007.

¶12

Mr. A. S. Rao for the appellant in CEXA/113/2007.

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶15

2-CEXA.65.2004.doc

¶16

Ms. S. I. Shah i/b. M/s. S. I. Shah and Co. for the appellant in CEXA/50/2011.

¶17

Mr. R. V. Shetty with Mr. K. R. Chaudhari for the respondent in CEXA/65/2004.

¶18

Mr. Durgesh H. Nadkarni for the respondent in CUAPP/98/2007.

¶19

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ. DATED :- JULY 4, 2016

¶20

P.C. :-

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

appellants/Revenue, on instructions, state that the Revenue maybe allowed to withdraw these appeals. They are withdrawn in the light of the circular issued by the Revenue which determines the limit of monetary sums or the sum above which alone the appeals of the Revenue are to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a sum mentioned below this limit would not be pressed and on the Revenue's request, the court may dismiss it as withdrawn.

¶23

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.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶26

2-CEXA.65.2004.doc

¶27

By clarifying as above, all the above appeals are

¶28

allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed of as such.

¶29

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

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

J.V.Salunke,PA

The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Anr. v. M/S Mine Safety Appliances (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Anr. v. M/S Mine Safety Appliances (India) Ltd. and Anr.

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

Sachin Lalasaheb Surwase, Prop. Hi Tech Food Products and 2 Others Vs Authorised Officer, Corporation Bank and 5 Others

M/S. Spun Communications Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Anilkumar Pranlal Dave Vs the Chief Executive Officer and 7 Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raigad Commissionerate Raigad Vs M/S. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg Co. Ltd.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax and Customs , New Panvel Vs M/S Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., Raigad

the commissioner of central excise-raigad Vs m/s global board limited-mahad