Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (Unit Ii)

Bombay HC10 Jan 2018CEXA/96/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench decided that Central Excise Appeal No. 96 of 2016 shares facts and questions of law with No. 124 of 2016. Since No.124 was dismissed on 14 Dec 2017, it disposed of Appeal No. 96 of 2016 accordingly without order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal No.96 of 2016 dismissed as its fate was decided by the order in Appeal No.124 of 2016.

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (Unit Ii) — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

911-CEXA.96.2016+1.doc

¶2

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

¶3

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2016

¶4

Commissioner of Central Excise } and Service Tax } Appellant versus Macleods Pharmaceuticals } Limited (Unit ii) } Respondent

¶5

WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2016

¶6

Commissioner of Central Excise	}
and Service Tax	} Appellant
versus
Macleods Pharmaceuticals	}
Limited (Unit iii)	} Respondent

¶7

Mr. Swapnil Bangur for the Appellant.

¶8

Mr. M. H. Patil i/b. Ms. Mansi Patil for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JANUARY 10, 2018

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

The Central Excise Appeal No. 96 of 2016 was to be heard along with Central Excise Appeal No. 124 of 2016, as both involve the same facts and same proposed questions of law and termed as substantial questions of law by the Revenue. Central Excise

¶12

Appeal No. 124 of 2016 was extensively heard by a Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Sanklecha and

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶15

911-CEXA.96.2016+1.doc

¶16

an order was passed on 14^th December, 2017 dismissing it. On that day, Central Excise Appeal No. 96 of 2016 was not on board. Today, both are on board, one is wrongly and one correctly. It is conceded by both sides that the order dated 14^th December, 2017 would decide the fate of Central Excise Appeal No. 96 of 2016. That is accordingly decided it is also dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

¶17

(SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶18

Page 2 of 2

¶19

J.V.Salunke,PA

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (Unit Ii)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax v. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited (Unit Ii)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhalchandra Haribhau Tingre Vs Ganesh Vitthal Tingre , through P.A. Holder Mantra Buildcon and Ors.

State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Asha Pravin Agarwal

Icon Line and Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs and Ors.

Smt. Sindhubai Namdeo Vhatkar and Ors. Vs Revenue Minister, Revenue Dept. and Ors.

Smt. Sindhubai Namdeo Vhatkar and Ors. Vs Revenue Minister, Revenue Dept. and Ors.

The Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik II Commissionerate Vs M/S. Vaibhav Forge