Bombay High Court
S Radhakrishnan, Finance Head Of Cipla ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Raigad on 18 September, 2018
Author: Riyaz I. Chagla
Bench: M.S.Sanklecha, Riyaz I. Chagla
S.R.JOSHI cexa-165-2017-group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2017
Jivan C. Patil .. Appellant
v/s
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Mumbai-III, .. Respondent.
WITH
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.159 OF 2017
S. Radhakrishnan .. Appellant
v/s.
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Mumbai-III, .. Respondent.
WITH
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.170 OF 2017
S. Radhakrishnan, Finance Head of
CIPLA Ltd. .. Appellant
v/s.
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Raigad .. Respondent.
WITH
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.171 OF 2017
Jivan C. Patil .. Appellant
v/s.
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Raigad .. Respondent.
WITH
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.215 OF 2017
CIPLA Limited .. Appellant
v/s.
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Mumbai-III, .. Respondent.
1 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2018 00:37:50 :::
S.R.JOSHI cexa-165-2017-group
WITH
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.216 OF 2017
CIPLA Ltd., .. Appellant
v/s.
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Raigad .. Respondent.
Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal, for
the Appellant in all the appeals.
Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. J. B. Mishra, for the Respondent in CEXA
Nos. 165 of 2017, 159 of 2017 and 215 of 2017.
Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Ms. Ruju Thakker, for the Respondent in CEXA
170 of 2017, 171 of 2017 and 216 of 2017.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA &
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER,2018. P.C:-
We indicated our prima facie view that these Appeals may not lie before us, as the impugned order dated 22nd September, 2016 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) arises out of a valuation issue.
2 It was submitted that in these appeals, they seek no relief on merits, but only challenge the impugned order to the extent it is in breach of natural justice i.e non-speaking order. The grievance is only to the decision making process and all they seek is a restoration of its appeal to the Tribunal for fresh disposal.
3 However, we pointed out that in view of Section 35G of the
2 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2018 00:37:50 :::
S.R.JOSHI cexa-165-2017-group
Act and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v/s. Designated Authority 349 ELT 193, the appeal may not be entertained by us.
4 Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel, in support of the Appeals, seeks to withdraw these appeals with liberty to file Writ Petitions, challenging the common impugned order dated 22 nd September, 2016. This, as the same is a non-speaking order. The challenge, it is stated in the Writ Petition will not raise any issue as regards to valuation but only seek remand to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
5 Liberty as sought for, granted in the peculiar facts of this case.
6 Accordingly, all the five Appeals are disposed of, as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty .
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) 3 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2018 00:37:50 :::