Full Text
Translation output
$-20 to 37 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CEAC 33/2014, NEERAVHANS , petitioner
Through Mr.SalilKapoor,Ms.Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
CEAC 33/2014, NEERAVHANS , petitioner
Through Mr.SalilKapoor,Ms.Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
, -
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.),DELHI Respondent
Through Mr.Satish Kumar,Sr.standing counselfor Respondent
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.),DELHI Respondent
Through Mr.Satish Kumar,Sr.standing counselfor Respondent
CEAC 34/2014
SGB ENGINEERINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through Mr.Salil Kapoor,Ms.Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
SGB ENGINEERINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner
Through Mr.Salil Kapoor,Ms.Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.)DELHI Respondent
Through
Through
CEAC 35/2014
HANS RAJ SHIV Petitioner Advocates
HANS RAJ SHIV Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.)DELHI Respondent
CEAC 36/2014
2015:DHC:10896-DB HANS RAJSHIV petitioner Advocates
2015:DHC:10896-DB HANS RAJSHIV petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
CEAC 37/2014
NECINDUSTRIALPROJECTS LTD. Petitioner Advocates
'
NECINDUSTRIALPROJECTS LTD. Petitioner Advocates
'
VERSUS
•
COMMISSIONER CENTRALEXCISE(ADJ),DELHI Respondent counsel for Respondent
COMMISSIONER CENTRALEXCISE(ADJ),DELHI Respondent counsel for Respondent
CEAC 38/2014
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
CEAC 39/2014
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONERCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ),DELHI Respondent
CEAC 40/2014
NEERAVHANS peti,io„er
Advocates
NEERAVHANS peti,io„er
Advocates
VERSUS
CEAC 41/2014
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
CEAC 42/2014
NEERAV HANS Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor,Ms.Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
NEERAV HANS Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor,Ms.Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.),DELHI Respondent
9)
9)
CEAC 43/2014
FRAMIKS SCAFFOLDINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner Advocates
FRAMIKS SCAFFOLDINGPVT.LTD. Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.)DELHI Respondent
CEAC 44/2014
BRITISH SCAFFOLDING
(INDIA)LTD. Petitioner Advocates
BRITISH SCAFFOLDING
(INDIA)LTD. Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ),DELHI Respondent
CEAC 45/2014
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
CEAC 46/2014
NEERAY HANS Petitioner Advocates
NEERAY HANS Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ.),DELHI Respondent
CEAC 47/2014
LINEMANN HALFLO(INDIA)LTD. Petitioner Advocates
LINEMANN HALFLO(INDIA)LTD. Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONERCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ),DELHI Respondent eounsel for Respondent
CEAC 48/2014
Advoeates
Advoeates
VERSUS
CEAC 49/2014
Advocates
Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE,DELHI Respondent
CEAC 8/2015
EURO SCAFF(INDIA)LTD. pe,i,io„er
Advocates
EURO SCAFF(INDIA)LTD. pe,i,io„er
Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONEROFCENTRALEXCISE(ADJ). Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
27.04.2015 It is pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue thatthese appeals are not maintainable under Section 35G ofthe Central Excise Act, in Navin Cheniiccils
Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd. V5. Collector ofCustoms, 1993(68)ELT 3
(SC)and the Division Bench ruling in the case of BhartiAirtelLimitedlOU(30)
S.T.R 451(Del)and Commissioner ofService Tax vs. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd., 2014(34)STR3(Del).
The appellants argue that these matters pertaining to penalty cannot be heard by this courton its merits since penalties,acceptance and circumstances are identically connected with primary liability which pertainsto determination.
In view ofthesesubmissions,learned counselfor appellantsseek libertyto withdraw the presentappeal and avail the remedies available in law under Section
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
27.04.2015 It is pointed out by learned counsel for Revenue thatthese appeals are not maintainable under Section 35G ofthe Central Excise Act, in Navin Cheniiccils
Manufacturing and Trading Co. Ltd. V5. Collector ofCustoms, 1993(68)ELT 3
(SC)and the Division Bench ruling in the case of BhartiAirtelLimitedlOU(30)
S.T.R 451(Del)and Commissioner ofService Tax vs. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd., 2014(34)STR3(Del).
The appellants argue that these matters pertaining to penalty cannot be heard by this courton its merits since penalties,acceptance and circumstances are identically connected with primary liability which pertainsto determination.
In view ofthesesubmissions,learned counselfor appellantsseek libertyto withdraw the presentappeal and avail the remedies available in law under Section
ORDER
35 L. Liberty granted. It is open to the appellants to seek remedies available with them in law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Order Dasti.
APRIL 27,2015 mw.RAVINDHA BEAT,J ^R.K.GAUm,J