Karnataka High Court
M/S Cipla Ltd Virgonagar vs The Commr Of Central Excise Bangalore on 18 December, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18"*DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 PRESENT " uu THE HON'BLE M.JUSTICE K.L.MANiUNATHC«f~«* AND -w_5, ._. THE HoN'BLE MR.JUSTICEWARAViNDEKUMARaf T.R.C.NO 16 0? 2004 BETWEEN: 1 M/S CIPLA LTD , vTREdNAéAR OLD MADRAS RCAD "' " BANGALORE 4 9 ' ,m]f.'eAE'?\;V§ETITIONER (By Sri : v EAHsHMT_kUMARAN; ADV.) AND 1 VTHE'coMNIsEI0NER»oE CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE' .'= " * 'v " ' AT' RESPONDENT (By sri: E N MORAN, ADV.) this RTRC is referred u/s. 35H of the ',dee£rg1_~Exeise Act, 1944 in Appeal No. E/369/2001 arising out of Tribunal Final Order No _383/2002 dated 15.03.2002 for the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court, on the question of hvlaw as stated in the reference. *-e:This TRC coming on for hearing this day, ANANJUNATH J, made the following:-- 5* ORDER
The matter is referred to the Tribunal to answer the following questions of law:f"dXsdk
1)
2) Whether the Tribunal has committeqfiflnrérrorx in disallowing the demand for duty on theW ground that the earlier orders deciding fihéa excisibility of the firoduct does not permit any such quantification?w 2 R I 1 Whether the Tribunal has cohmitted an error in not noticing 'ithef Lfact'. that the Department '_hadW "already ilcofibleted the assessment of ufie goods but did not enforce the assessment due to the'pendency of the matter before the Honfble High Court and other _authorities _in relation to the dispute regarding the excisibility of the product?' ,;
r»_¢,'Tne"learned counsel appearing for the fiarties'subfiits that the question No.1 under ' reference is already answered by the Hon'ble 2fSupremes Court between the same parties in uicipti LIMITED vs. COMISSIONER or CENTRAL "xdfi3cIsE, BANGALORE in Civil Appeal No.5793/2002 dated 26.3.2008 holding that the product in question is not liable for excise duty, oihe said. Judgment is reported. in 2008 (22S§hf$hfiie 403 (SC).
3. In view of the isameri the siearnede counsel for both the *9artiee Vsehmith that. 1 answering the guestionsL.x§rafieflLi in the reference is only eeademio in nature, as the said questig§<$s a1r§é§¥*@n§§e§§a between the same pa§tiesi:in"heE_nrelifiinaty proceedings against the re3enue,] " i V V e, =Foiiofiingh"the' fiudgment of the Apex Court, therefetenoe is closed. I' .....
JUDGE Sd/--
JUDGE