In an oral order, the bench dismissed an appeal as withdrawn because the appellant no longer wished to pursue it, citing a Supreme Court order in Commissioner v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited as the reason for the issue attaining finality.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; no costs.
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CEA No. 64 of 2012
Dated: 02-11-2012
Between: Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad And M/s Natco Pharma Ltd. (Natco) Mekaguda, Mahaboobnagar
…Petitioner
…Respondent.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
CEA No. 64 of 2012
Oral order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram)
It is stated by Sri A.Rajashekar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the appellant does not wish to pursue the appeal, as the issue involved in the appeal has attained finality in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Commissioner v.
Aurobindo Pharma Limited[1] .
Recording the submission, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
_________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
2nd November, 2012
_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
GRR
[1] (2011) 269 ELT A 147
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner v. Aurobindo Pharma LimitedReferred¶11
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad
M/s Natco Pharma Ltd.
GODA RAGHURAM
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
