Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Sai Construction Pvt. Ltd on 11 April, 2016

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT No. I

Applications ST/MA(Ors)/92618/16-Mum & ST/MA(Ors)/92619/16-Mum in appeals ST/87611/13-Mum & ST/89401/14-Mum arising out of orders-in-appeal No. PIII/RP/52/2013 dated 22.2.2013 and No. PUN-EXCUS-003-APP-020-14-15 dated 26.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Pune-III.

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
and
Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Appellant Vs. Sai Construction Pvt. Ltd. Respondent WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd.

Appearance:

Ms. P. Vinitha Sekhar, Jt. Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent 2 CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 11.4.2016 Date of Decision: 11.4.2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran This application is filed by the Revenue for withdrawal of the appeal as per the new Litigation Policy. The said application is allowed and the appeal is disposed of as withdrawn.
2. As regards application No. ST/MA(Ors)/92619/16, we were informed that the said appeal has already been decided by the Bench. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as infructuous.

(Pronounced in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 2