Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

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

Bombay High Court

Ina Bearings India Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise Pune ... on 25 September, 2018

Author: Riyaz I. Chagla

Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Riyaz I. Chagla

    S.R.JOSHI                                                            cexa-38-2018


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                   CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2018 
 

INA Bearing India Pvt. Ltd.,                                 ..     Appellant.
      v/s.
The Commissioner of Central Excise,
Pune-I                                                       ..     Respondent.



Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal, for the Appellant.
Mr.   Vijay   Kantharia   with   Mr.   Dhananjay   B.   Deshmukh,   for   the
Respondent. 
                                              CORAM:  M.S.SANKLECHA &
                                                         RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
                                              DATE    : 25th SEPTEMBER,2018.

P.C:-

                 Heard.

2                Appeal   admitted  on   the   following   substantial   question   of
law:-

"(a) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the Appellant received Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services from Schaeffler Group?

(b) Whether in the facts of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not following the orders of the co-ordinate bench and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Computer Sciences India Private Limited 2015 (37) STR 62 (All.) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Limited 2014 (35) STR 496 (Guj.)?


                                                                                       1 of 2
           S.R.JOSHI                                                         cexa-38-2018


(c) Whether the purported finding of the Tribunal that the deputed person is not the employee of the Appellant is perverse?"

Mr. Kantharia, learned Counsel waives service for Respondent.


       
      (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.)                                      (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)


             Digitally signed
Smita        by Smita
Rajnikant    Rajnikant Joshi
             Date: 2018.09.27
Joshi        16:38:23 +0530




                                                                                         2 of 2