The Commissioner Of Central Excise Thane Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Delite Refrigeration Co.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2008 The Commissioner of } Central Excise, Thane-II } Appellant versus M/s. Delite Refrigeration Co. } Respondent WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2013 Commissioner of Central } Excise, Customs and } Service Tax } Appellant versus Shri. Sanjeev Agarwal } Respondent WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2013 Commissioner of Central } Excise, Customs and } Service Tax } Appellant versus M/s. Siyaram Packaging } Pvt. Ltd.

} Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2014 The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2014 The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent

WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2014 The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation } Pvt. Ltd.

} Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2014 The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2014 The Commissioner of } Customs } Appellant versus Metal Impregnation Pvt. Ltd. } Respondent WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2014 The Commissioner of Central } Excise, Mumbai-II } Commissionerate } Appellant versus M/s. Chopra Engineering } Company } Respondent Mr. Vipul A. Bajpayee for the appellants in CEXA Nos. 12/2008, 284/2013, 298/2013 and 257/2013.

Mr. Sham V. Walve for the appellants in CUAPP Nos. 35/2014, 36/2014, 37/2014, 40/2014 and 41/2014.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & PRAKASH. D. NAIK, JJ.

DATED :- MARCH 27, 2017 P.C. :- 1.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions, states that the Revenue may be allowed to withdraw these appeals. They are withdrawn in the light of the circular issued by the Revenue which determines the limit of monetary sums or the sum above which alone the appeals of the Revenue are to be pressed. Every appeal involving a sum mentioned below this limit would not be pressed and on the Revenue's request, the court may dismiss them as withdrawn.

2.

We have found that the Revenue is withdrawing the appeals though admitted on substantial questions of law. It is for the Revenue to decide and withdraw the appeals based on its circular, but we clarify that we have expressed no opinion on the questions of law nor on the legality and validity of the circular. 3.

By clarifying as above, the appeals are allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed of as such.

(PRAKASH.D.NAIK, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)