Full Text
Translation output
\ $- HIGH COURT OF DELHI 59 to 64
CEAC10/2017
HIMGIRIPLASTICS Petitioner
Through: Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates
CEAC10/2017
HIMGIRIPLASTICS Petitioner
Through: Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Mr Prashant Srivastava and Mr Dhruv Seth, Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II Respondent
Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing ^ Counsel
CEAC^M^OIT RIMMI TALWAR Petitioner Advocates
Through: Mr Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing ^ Counsel
CEAC^M^OIT RIMMI TALWAR Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
Counsel
CEAC 12/2017
JOGINDER KUMAR TALWAR Petitioner Advocates
JOGINDER KUMAR TALWAR Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
CEAC10/2017&connected matters Page 1 of4
2017:DHC:8822-DB Counsel
2017:DHC:8822-DB Counsel
CEAC13/2017
HIMALAYAN POLYCOLOURS CO. Petitioner
Through: Dr. O.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Advocates
HIMALAYAN POLYCOLOURS CO. Petitioner
Through: Dr. O.K. Sarkar, Ms Malabika Sarkar, Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE- Counsel
CEAC 14/2017
PUNEET TALWAR Petitioner Advocates
PUNEET TALWAR Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
Counsel
CEAC 15/2017
SANJEEV TALWAR
Petitioner Advocates
SANJEEV TALWAR
Petitioner Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,DELHI- II
CEAC10/2017& connected matters Page2of4
Respondent Counsel
Respondent Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
29.05.2017
29.05.2017
CM 21074/2017(exemption)in CEAC 10/2017
CM 21076/2017(exemption)in CEAC 11/2017
CM 21083/2017(exemption)in CEAC 12/2017
CM 21087/2017(exemption)in CEAC 13/2017
CM 21089/2017(exemption)in CEAC 14/2017
CM 21092/2017(exemption)in CEAC 15/2017
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
Allowed,subjectto alljust exceptions.
CEAC 10/2017& CM 21073/2017(stay)
CEAC 11/2017 «& CM 21075/2017(stay)
CEAC 12/2017 & CM 21082/2017(stay)
CEAC 13/2017 & CM 21086/2017(stay)
CEAC 14/2017 & CM 21088/2017(stay)
CEAC 15/2017 & CM 21091/2017(stay)
Lit is seen from the show cause notices('SCN')issued to the Appellants that the subject matter concerned availing of exemption as SSI units under the Notification No.8/2003. The case ofthe Department on the other hand has been that the Appellants are not entitled to such exemption. This would be a matter concerning the rate of duty of excise and therefore outside the ambit ofSection 35 G ofthe Central Excise Act, 1944(CE Act).The appeal would be maintainable, if at all, only before the Supreme Court of India under Section 35 L ofthe CE Act.
Lit is seen from the show cause notices('SCN')issued to the Appellants that the subject matter concerned availing of exemption as SSI units under the Notification No.8/2003. The case ofthe Department on the other hand has been that the Appellants are not entitled to such exemption. This would be a matter concerning the rate of duty of excise and therefore outside the ambit ofSection 35 G ofthe Central Excise Act, 1944(CE Act).The appeal would be maintainable, if at all, only before the Supreme Court of India under Section 35 L ofthe CE Act.
ORDER
2. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as not being maintainable. The CEAC10/2017 connected matters Page3of[4] liberty ofthe Appellants to file appeals before the Supreme Court againstthe impugned order ofthe CESTAT in accordance with law is reserved. MAY 29,2017 rd S.MURALIDHAR,J CHANDER SHEKHAR,J CEAC10/2017& connected matters Page4of[4]