The Commissione Rof Central Excis-Pune-I v. M/S Lasaria Plastics

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2007 The Commissioner of } Customs (Import) } Appellant versus S. Dhulekar } Respondent WITH CENTARL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central } Excise, Pune - I } Appellant versus M/s. Lasaria Plastics } Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 60 OF 2009 The Commissioner of } Customs (Preventive) } Mumbai } Appellant versus Kalpana S. Ved } Respondent WITH CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2009 (Not on Board) Commissioner of Customs } (Preventive) } Appellant versus Girish Dighe and Ors.

} Respondents Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the appellant in CUAPP/23/2007.

Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Ms. Ruju R.

Thakker for the appellant in CEXA/216/2007.

Mr. Sham V. Walve for the appellant in CUAPP/60/2009 and CUAPP/17/2009.

Ms. Priyanka Patil i/b. Mr. V.

Subramanian for the respondent in CUAPP/23/2007.

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

DATED :- DECEMBER 5, 2016 P.C. :- 1.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions, states that the Revenue may be allowed to withdraw these appeals.

2.

The appeals are withdrawn in the light of the circular issued by the Revenue, which determines the limit of monetary sums or the sum above which alone the appeals of the Revenue are to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a sum mentioned below this limit would not be pressed and on the Revenue's request, the court may dismiss them as withdrawn.

3.

We have found that the Revenue is withdrawing these 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.

4.

By clarifying as above, the appeals are allowed to be withdrawn and stand disposed of as such.

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)