The Division Bench disposed of identical revenue questions in a previous batch of appeals on February 8, 2016. This Court applies that settled order to dispose of the present appeal without examining further merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
909-CEXA.238.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2016
The Commissioner of Central } Excise } Appellant
versus M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. } Respondent
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra for the appellant. Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghvi i/b M/s. PDS Legal for the respondent.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JANUARY 16, 2018
P.C. :-
In a batch of appeals, a Division Bench of this court, to which, one of us (S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party, on 8th February, 2016 settled the controversy and which arose out of the order impugned in this appeal. Since identical questions of law proposed by the revenue were considered in the batch of appeals (The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I vs. M/s. Mahindra Navistar Automotives1 and connected matters) disposed of on 8th February, 2016, it is conceded that the said order will govern the disposal of the present appeal. We direct that the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above mentioned Division Bench order.
(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
J.V.Salunke,PA
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I vs. M/s. Mahindra Navistar AutomotivesReferred¶9
Commissioner of Central Excise
M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd.
S. C. Dharmadhikari
Bharati H. Dangre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
