Disposed

The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Delite Refrigeration Co.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2017CEXA/12/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellants sought to withdraw multiple Central Excise and Customs appeals based on a Revenue circular limiting monetary sums to be pressed to trial. The court allowed the withdrawal without expressing an opinion on the substantial questions of law raised or the legality of the circular, disposing of the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of as such.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane Ii, Mumbai Vs M/S Delite Refrigeration Co. — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1to5-CEXA.12.2008.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2008

¶4

The Commissioner of } Central Excise, Thane-II } Appellant versus M/s. Delite Refrigeration Co. } Respondent

¶5

WITH

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2013

¶7

Commissioner of Central } Excise, Customs and } Service Tax } Appellant versus Shri. Sanjeev Agarwal } Respondent

¶8

WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2013

¶9

Commissioner of Central } Excise, Customs and } Service Tax } Appellant versus M/s. Siyaram Packaging } Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2014

¶12

The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2014 The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶17

1to5-CEXA.12.2008.doc

¶18

WITH

¶19

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2014

¶20

The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation } Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

¶21

WITH

¶22

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2014

¶23

The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

¶24

WITH

¶25

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2014

¶26

The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

¶27

WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2014

¶28

The Commissioner of Central } Excise, Mumbai-II } Commissionerate } Appellant versus M/s. Chopra Engineering } Company } Respondent

¶29

Mr. Vipul A. Bajpayee for the appellants in CEXA Nos. 12/2008, 284/2013, 298/2013 and 257/2013.

¶30

Mr. Sham V. Walve for the appellants in CUAPP Nos. 35/2014, 36/2014, 37/2014, 40/2014 and 41/2014.

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶33

1to5-CEXA.12.2008.doc

¶34

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH. D. NAIK, JJ.

¶35

DATED :- MARCH 27, 2017

¶36

P.C. :-

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions, states that the Revenue may be 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 them as withdrawn.

¶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

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

¶40

(PRAKASH.D.NAIK, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶41

Page 3 of 3

¶42

J.V.Salunke,PA

The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Delite Refrigeration Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central Excise Thane Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Delite Refrigeration Co.

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 commissioner of salkes tax,mum Vs m/s wipro Ltd.

M/S. Mangla Hospitality Limited Vs Thestateofmaharashtra and Anr.

Monthi H. Lobo (Since Deceased)Legal Heirs 1(A) Agnes Raphel Quadros and 6 Ors. ( I.E. 1(G) Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax -8 Vs M/S. Avin Pumps Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax 25 Vs M/S City Life Developers

Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Ii, Mumbai Vs Pipavav Shipyard Ltd.