Motion filed for condonation of delay in filing a Central Excise Appeal. Tribunal order impugned. Motion allowed as revenue counsel did not oppose.
Motion for condonation of delay allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
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.
18-18-NMA-3=.doc
Uday S. Jagtap
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 18 OF 2018 IN
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO. 108 OF 2017
M/s. Evonik Catalyst Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicant
In the matter between
M/s. Evonik Catalyst Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. A.R. Nair I/b Vinit Dubay for the applicant / orig. appellant Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the respondents
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.J.
DATED : 14th SEPTEMBER, 2018.
P.C.
Digitally signed by Uday Shivaji Uday Jagtap Date: Shivaji 2018.09.18 11:19:54 Jagtap +0530
1 of 2
18-18-NMA-3=.doc
Uday S. Jagtap
clause (a).
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
2 of 2
M/s. Evonik Catalyst Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India
M.S. Sanklecha
Riyaz I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
