Rimmi Talwar v. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi - Ii
\ $- *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
59 to 64 + CEAC10/2017 HIMGIRI PLASTICS Petitioner Through: Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II ^ + CEAC^M^OIT RIMMI TALWAR Petitioner Through: Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - II + CEAC 12/2017 JOGINDER KUMAR TALWAR Petitioner Through: Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - II CEAC 10/2017 & connected matters By:AMULYA
+ CEAC13/2017 HIMALAYAN POLYCOLOURS CO.
Petitioner Through: Dr. O.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - DELHI-II + CEAC 14/2017 PUNEET TALWAR Petitioner Through: Dr. O.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - II + CEAC 15/2017 SANJEEV TALWAR Petitioner Through: Dr. O.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - II CEAC 10/2017 & connected matters
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
ORDER
% 29.05.2017 CM 21074/2017 (exemption) in CEAC 10/2017 CM 21076/2017 (exemption) in CEAC 11/2017 CM 21083/2017 (exemption) in CEAC 12/2017 CM 21087/2017 (exemption) in CEAC 13/2017 CM 21089/2017 (exemption) in CEAC 14/2017 CM 21092/2017 (exemption) in CEAC 15/2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CEAC 10/2017 & CM 21073/2017 (stay) CEAC 11/2017 «& CM 21075/2017 (stay) CEAC 12/2017 & CM 21082/2017 (stay) CEAC 13/2017 & CM 21086/2017 (stay) CEAC 14/2017 & CM 21088/2017 (stay) CEAC 15/2017 & CM 21091/2017 (stay) Lit is seen from the show cause notices ('SCN') issued to the Appellants that the subject matter concerned availing of exemption as SSI units under the Notification No.8/2003. The case of the Department on the other hand has been that the Appellants are not entitled to such exemption. This would be a matter concerning the rate of duty of excise and therefore outside the ambit of Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act). The appeal would be maintainable, if at all, only before the Supreme Court of India under Section 35 L of the CE Act.
2. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as not being maintainable. The CEAC 10/2017 connected matters
liberty of the Appellants to file appeals before the Supreme Court against the impugned order of the CESTAT in accordance with law is reserved. S.MURALIDHAR, J CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MAY 29, 2017 rd CEAC10/2017 & connected matters