1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2005 M/S. SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1753 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2856 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6036-6038 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4886 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6749-6769 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7247-7281 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8186 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8187-8189 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9145-9164 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5473 OF 2013
2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5474 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. All these appeals are taken up together for hearing as the issue involved in these appeals is identical, though divergent view is taken by the different Benches of the Tribunal. Issue pertains to grant of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 14/02-CE and 15/02-CE both dated 01.03.2002. These notifications give the benefit of concessional rate or nil rate of duty to the knitted garment manufacturers on certain conditions. One of the conditions is for full exemption is that knitted garments are exempt if manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate duty of excise has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken. If Cenvat credit is taken, the duty is at concessional rate. 2. The Revenue has taken the position that the benefit of these notifications is available only when the garments have been manufactured from the duty paid fabrics and in those cases where the fabrics has not suffered excise duty, it cannot be said that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid thereon and consequently the benefit of notifications would not be available. The stand taken by the assessees, on the other hand, is that Explanation II to the exemption
3 notifications creates a legal fiction, specifying that for the purpose of conditions of this notification, textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid even in the absence of production of documents evidencing payment of duty. They also relied upon condition No. 3 of this notification. Many Benches of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') has accepted the plea of the assessees holding that benefit of exemption notification would be admissible. Many other Benches of the Tribunal have taken a contrary view, thereby accepting the plea of the Revenue and holding that Condition No. 4 is not satisfied. That is the precise reason for filing two sets of appeals, preferred both by the Revenue as well as those assessees. 3. In order to state the precise question of law that falls for consideration and the backdrop in which it arises for discussion, we would take note of the facts appearing in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2005 which is preferred by an assessee. 4. Assessee is an integrated textile apparel manufacturer. Assessee purchases excise duty paid yarn from the market on payment of excise duty. Assessee does not take any MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the yarn. Assessee manufactures the knitted fabrics in its factory out of the duty paid yarn. The knitted fabric is entirely captively consumed in the manufacture of knitted apparels. The apparels are thereafter cleared outside the factory.
4 5. Vide Union Budget 2002, a new excise duty scheme for textile sectors was introduced. Under this scheme, vide Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, fabric manufacturers and garment manufacturers were given an option to operate under two different schemes. Under one scheme, where the manufacturers of the fabric or garment wants to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods, excise duty @ 75% of the normal rate of duty of 12% was levied. Under another scheme, where the manufacturers do not want to avail of the MODVAT facility, complete exemption from excise duty to the fabrics and garments was granted. The various Sl. Nos. of Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE prescribed these two alternative schemes. 6. Notification No. 15/2002-CE vide Sl. No. 14 prescribed Nil rate of excise duty for “Articles of apparel, knitted or crocheted” falling under Heading 61.01, subject to the following condition: “ If made from knitted or crocheted textile fabrics, whether or not processed on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act, and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act read with any notification for the time being in force or the Additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid and no credit of the duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.” Explanation to Notification No. 15/2002-CE provided as under: “ For the purposes of conditions specified below, textile yarns or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid
5 even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon” 7. Notification No. 15/2002-CE, as is evident from the preamble thereto, grants exemption from whole of duty of excise leviable on knitted garments falling under heading 61.01 subject to the satisfaction of Condition No. 4 of this notification. As per Condition No. 4 of the notification, knitted garments are exempt provided these garments are manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate excise duty has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs or capital goods has been taken. 8. Show cause notice dated 27.03.2003 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, proposing to deny the benefit of Notification No.15/2002-CE to the apparels and demanding excise duty in respect of the clearances made between 01.03.2002 to November, 2002. The assessee submitted its reply. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida passed order-in-original dated 31.07.2003 confirming the duty demand imposing equivalent amount of penalty. On 20.01.2004, assessee filed appeal No. E/251/03-A before the Tribunal against the above order of the Commissioner. In that appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned final Order Nos. 1239-1240/04-NB(A) upholding the order of the Commissioner on the aspect of denial of Notification No. 15/2002-CE to the apparels. However, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed
6 on the assessee. 9. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that for coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries 1 . In that case, exemption notification came up for consideration and interpreting the phrase “on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid”, the Court held that in order to avail the benefit of the notification, it was incumbent upon the manufacturer to actually pay the duty, in the following words: “ An exemption notification that uses the said phrase applies to goods which have been made from duty paid material. In the same phrase, due emphasis must be given to the words “has already been paid”. For the purposes of getting the benefit of the exemption under the notification, the goods must be made from raw material on which excise duty has, as a matter of fact, been paid, and has been paid at the “appropriate” or correct rate. Unless the manufacturer has paid, the correct amount of excise duty he is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.” 10. The Tribunal has also rejected the contention of the assessee predicated on Explanation II to the notification by observing that the said explanation only dispenses production of documents evidencing payment of duty and does not waive the condition of payment thereof. 11. Challenging the aforesaid rationale adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the impugned decision, the learned counsel for the Revenue made his submission on two fronts. In the first instance, it was argued that the 1 (2002) 2 SCC 127
7 Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries case, which is a judgment of December, 2001 wherein earlier notification was interpreted by the Court. He submitted that the position changed dramatically thereafter inasmuch as in order to overcome the condition of actual excise duty, Explanation II was specifically inserted in Notification No. 15/02 thereby creating a fiction of deemed duty paid insofar as manufacturers of knitted textile are concerned. For this purpose, he has taken us through the Budget Speech/Explanatory Notes concerning the Notification Nos. 14 and 15/2002. He, thus, argued that judgment in Dhiren Chemical Industries case was not applicable having regard to the aforesaid provision specifically incorporated in the new notifications. In this very hue, his second attempt was to argue that Explanation II of the notification was not correctly interpreted by the Tribunal, thereby defeating the very purpose for which this notification was issued. 12. Learned counsel for the assessees, on the other hand, argued on the same lines on which the Tribunal has rested its decision. 13. We have considered the respective submissions and are of the view that the stand taken by the assessees warrants to succeed. 14. We have already reproduced the relevant portion of Notification No. 15/2002, in particular Condition No. 4 contained therein as well as Explanation II thereof. As pointed out above, in the Union Budget 2002,
8 a new excise duty scheme for textile sector was introduced, as per which manufacturers of the fabric or garments were given choice to opt under one of two schemes. Normal rate of duty is 12%. The two notifications provided exemption and concessional rates respectively. Those who wanted to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods, were supposed to pay excise duty at concessional rate i.e. 75% of the normal rate of duty. Under the other scheme, full exemption from payment of duty was granted to those who did not wish to avail the MODVAT credit facility. These two schemes were explained in the Budget Explanatory Notes issued by the Central Government, relevant portion whereof is extracted below: “ In the case of processed knitted fabrics of cotton, which were hitherto exempt from duty, an optional levy of 12% [8% Cenvat + 4% AED(ST)] has been prescribed. That is, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs (either on deemed basis or actual basis) and capital goods (on actual basis), he will be required to pay duty at 12% adv. [8% cenvat + 4% AED(ST)]. If he does not want to avail any credit on inputs and capital goods, he is not required to pay any duty. The rates of deemed credit for processed knitted fabrics of cotton are the same as applicable to woven fabrics. Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE, both dated 01.03.2002 prescribes effective rates of duty of 'nil' or 12% adv. in the case of textile fabrics subject to the condition that the goods should have been made from textile yarns or fabrics on which the appropriate excise duty or CVD has been paid. It may, however, be noted that Explanation II to the notification makes it abundantly clear that all fibres and yarns are deemed to have been duty paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty. Therefore, the manufacturer is eligible for the rates prescribed in the notification. The only condition that has to be satisfied is with regard to availment or non-availment of cenvat credit, as the case may be.
9 It is thus made clear that the benefit of the rate of duty should be allowed without insisting upon any documentary proof for payment of duty. However, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods on actual basis, he will be required to produce duty paying documents as prescribed under the Cenvat credit rules.” 15. A reading of the aforesaid Explanatory Note makes it clear that those who did not want to avail MODVAT facility were allowed to clear the goods without payment of any excise duty. It is in this context that the authorities were asked not to insist upon any documentary proof for payment of duty and this was transported into the notification, in the form of Explanation II. It, therefore, becomes clear that when Explanation II states that the duty shall be deemed to have been paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon, it was clearly meant that no duty was required to be paid by the manufacturers of knitted garments. Such an intention is clearly reflected in the Government's own Budgetary Notes extracted above. We, thus, hold that Explanation II to the said exemption Notification Nos. 14/2002 and 15/2002 create legal fiction and that was the precise purpose for which this explanation was added. It is trite law that a fiction created by a provision of law is to be given its due play and it must be taken to its logical conclusion ( Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog 2 ). 16. It would be pertinent to mention here that Condition No. 3 which uses the words “read with any notification for the time being in force” was put 2 (1994) 1 SCC 318
10 in place to overcome the interpretation that was given by this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessees has brought to our notice another pertinent development. He submitted that because of conflicting views of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal which has answered the reference by detailed judgment rendered on 29.10.2014, accepting the plea of the assessees and rejecting the stand of the Revenue. In any case, we have independently examined the issue and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that benefit of exemption notification would be available to all these assessees. 18. As a result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and those appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) NEW DELHI; MARCH 04, 2016.
11 REVISED ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.12 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1288/2005 M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Respondent(s) (With Appln. for permission to file additional documents) WITH C.A. No. 1752/2006 (With C.A. No. 1753/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 1856/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2267/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2856/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4479/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4612/2010 C.A. No. 4886/2010 C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8186/2010 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010 (With Office Report)
12 C.A. No. 2260/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5473/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5474/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 04/03/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. Pratik Raoka, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupender Singh Mar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Ms. L. Charnya, Adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Anandh. K., Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. Mr. Gautam Chugh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. M.H. Patil Adv. Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Mr. T. Chandran Nair, Adv. Mr. P.K. Shetty, Adv. For M/s. S. Narain & Co. Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv. Mr. Prabhati K.C., Adv.
13 Mr. Abinav Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A No.1288/2005, C.A. No. 4612/2010, C.A. No. 4886/2010, C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010, C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010, C.A. No. 8186/2010, C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010, C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010 & C.A. No. 2260/2011 are allowed and C.A. No. 1752/2006, C.A. No. 1753/2006, C.A. No. 1856/2006, C.A. No. 2267/2006, C.A. No. 2856/2006, C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008, C.A. No. 5473/2013 & C.A. No. 5474/2013 are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment. Application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. C.A. No. 4479 of 2006 is de-tagged. (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
14 ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.12 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 1288/2005 M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Respondent(s) (With Appln. for permission to file additional documents) WITH C.A. No. 1752/2006 (With C.A. No. 1753/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 1856/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2267/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2856/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4479/2006 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4612/2010 C.A. No. 4886/2010 C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8186/2010 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010 (With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010 (With Office Report)
15 C.A. No. 2260/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5473/2013 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5474/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 04/03/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. Pratik Raoka, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupender Singh Mar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Ms. L. Charnya, Adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Anandh. K., Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. Mr. Gautam Chugh, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. M.H. Patil Adv. Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Mr. T. Chandran Nair, Adv. Mr. P.K. Shetty, Adv. For M/s. S. Narain & Co. Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv. Mr. Prabhati K.C., Adv.
16 Mr. Abinav Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A No.1288/2005, C.A. No. 1752/2006, C.A. No. 1753/2006, C.A. No. 1856/2006, C.A. No. 2267/2006, C.A. No. 2856/2006, C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008, C.A. No. 5473/2013 & C.A. No. 5474/2013 are allowed and C.A. No. 4612/2010, C.A. No. 4886/2010, C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010, C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010, C.A. No. 8186/2010, C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010, C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010 & C.A. No. 2260/2011 are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment. Application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. C.A. No. 4479 of 2006 is de-tagged. (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty ) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2005 M/S. SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1753 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2856 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6036-6038 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4886 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6749-6769 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7247-7281 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8186 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8187-8189 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9145-9164 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5473 OF 2013
2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5474 OF 2013 J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. All these appeals are taken up together for hearing as the issue involved in these appeals is identical, though divergent view is taken by the different Benches of the Tribunal. Issue pertains to grant of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 14/02-CE and 15/02-CE both dated 01.03.2002. These notifications give the benefit of concessional rate or nil rate of duty to the knitted garment manufacturers on certain conditions. One of the conditions is for full exemption is that knitted garments are exempt if manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate duty of excise has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken. If Cenvat credit is taken, the duty is at concessional rate. 2. The Revenue has taken the position that the benefit of these notifications is available only when the garments have been manufactured from the duty paid fabrics and in those cases where the fabrics has not suffered excise duty, it cannot be said that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid thereon and consequently the benefit of notifications would not be available. The stand taken by the assessees, on the other hand, is that Explanation II to the exemption
3 notifications creates a legal fiction, specifying that for the purpose of conditions of this notification, textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid even in the absence of production of documents evidencing payment of duty. They also relied upon condition No. 3 of this notification. Many Benches of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') has accepted the plea of the assessees holding that benefit of exemption notification would be admissible. Many other Benches of the Tribunal have taken a contrary view, thereby accepting the plea of the Revenue and holding that Condition No. 4 is not satisfied. That is the precise reason for filing two sets of appeals, preferred both by the Revenue as well as those assessees. 3. In order to state the precise question of law that falls for consideration and the backdrop in which it arises for discussion, we would take note of the facts appearing in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2005 which is preferred by an assessee. 4. Assessee is an integrated textile apparel manufacturer. Assessee purchases excise duty paid yarn from the market on payment of excise duty. Assessee does not take any MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the yarn. Assessee manufactures the knitted fabrics in its factory out of the duty paid yarn. The knitted fabric is entirely captively consumed in the manufacture of knitted apparels. The apparels are thereafter cleared outside the factory.
4 5. Vide Union Budget 2002, a new excise duty scheme for textile sectors was introduced. Under this scheme, vide Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, fabric manufacturers and garment manufacturers were given an option to operate under two different schemes. Under one scheme, where the manufacturers of the fabric or garment wants to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods, excise duty @ 75% of the normal rate of duty of 12% was levied. Under another scheme, where the manufacturers do not want to avail of the MODVAT facility, complete exemption from excise duty to the fabrics and garments was granted. The various Sl. Nos. of Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE prescribed these two alternative schemes. 6. Notification No. 15/2002-CE vide Sl. No. 14 prescribed Nil rate of excise duty for “Articles of apparel, knitted or crocheted” falling under Heading 61.01, subject to the following condition: “ If made from knitted or crocheted textile fabrics, whether or not processed on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act, and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act read with any notification for the time being in force or the Additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid and no credit of the duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.” Explanation to Notification No. 15/2002-CE provided as under: “ For the purposes of conditions specified below, textile yarns or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid
5 even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon” 7. Notification No. 15/2002-CE, as is evident from the preamble thereto, grants exemption from whole of duty of excise leviable on knitted garments falling under heading 61.01 subject to the satisfaction of Condition No. 4 of this notification. As per Condition No. 4 of the notification, knitted garments are exempt provided these garments are manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate excise duty has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs or capital goods has been taken. 8. Show cause notice dated 27.03.2003 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, proposing to deny the benefit of Notification No.15/2002-CE to the apparels and demanding excise duty in respect of the clearances made between 01.03.2002 to November, 2002. The assessee submitted its reply. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida passed order-in-original dated 31.07.2003 confirming the duty demand imposing equivalent amount of penalty. On 20.01.2004, assessee filed appeal No. E/251/03-A before the Tribunal against the above order of the Commissioner. In that appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned final Order Nos. 1239-1240/04-NB(A) upholding the order of the Commissioner on the aspect of denial of Notification No. 15/2002-CE to the apparels. However, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed
6 on the assessee. 9. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that for coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries 1 . In that case, exemption notification came up for consideration and interpreting the phrase “on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid”, the Court held that in order to avail the benefit of the notification, it was incumbent upon the manufacturer to actually pay the duty, in the following words: “ An exemption notification that uses the said phrase applies to goods which have been made from duty paid material. In the same phrase, due emphasis must be given to the words “has already been paid”. For the purposes of getting the benefit of the exemption under the notification, the goods must be made from raw material on which excise duty has, as a matter of fact, been paid, and has been paid at the “appropriate” or correct rate. Unless the manufacturer has paid, the correct amount of excise duty he is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification.” 10. The Tribunal has also rejected the contention of the assessee predicated on Explanation II to the notification by observing that the said explanation only dispenses production of documents evidencing payment of duty and does not waive the condition of payment thereof. 11. Challenging the aforesaid rationale adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the impugned decision, the learned counsel for the Revenue made his submission on two fronts. In the first instance, it was argued that the 1 (2002) 2 SCC 127
7 Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries case, which is a judgment of December, 2001 wherein earlier notification was interpreted by the Court. He submitted that the position changed dramatically thereafter inasmuch as in order to overcome the condition of actual excise duty, Explanation II was specifically inserted in Notification No. 15/02 thereby creating a fiction of deemed duty paid insofar as manufacturers of knitted textile are concerned. For this purpose, he has taken us through the Budget Speech/Explanatory Notes concerning the Notification Nos. 14 and 15/2002. He, thus, argued that judgment in Dhiren Chemical Industries case was not applicable having regard to the aforesaid provision specifically incorporated in the new notifications. In this very hue, his second attempt was to argue that Explanation II of the notification was not correctly interpreted by the Tribunal, thereby defeating the very purpose for which this notification was issued. 12. Learned counsel for the assessees, on the other hand, argued on the same lines on which the Tribunal has rested its decision. 13. We have considered the respective submissions and are of the view that the stand taken by the assessees warrants to succeed. 14. We have already reproduced the relevant portion of Notification No. 15/2002, in particular Condition No. 4 contained therein as well as Explanation II thereof. As pointed out above, in the Union Budget 2002,
8 a new excise duty scheme for textile sector was introduced, as per which manufacturers of the fabric or garments were given choice to opt under one of two schemes. Normal rate of duty is 12%. The two notifications provided exemption and concessional rates respectively. Those who wanted to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods, were supposed to pay excise duty at concessional rate i.e. 75% of the normal rate of duty. Under the other scheme, full exemption from payment of duty was granted to those who did not wish to avail the MODVAT credit facility. These two schemes were explained in the Budget Explanatory Notes issued by the Central Government, relevant portion whereof is extracted below: “ In the case of processed knitted fabrics of cotton, which were hitherto exempt from duty, an optional levy of 12% [8% Cenvat + 4% AED(ST)] has been prescribed. That is, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs (either on deemed basis or actual basis) and capital goods (on actual basis), he will be required to pay duty at 12% adv. [8% cenvat + 4% AED(ST)]. If he does not want to avail any credit on inputs and capital goods, he is not required to pay any duty. The rates of deemed credit for processed knitted fabrics of cotton are the same as applicable to woven fabrics. Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE, both dated 01.03.2002 prescribes effective rates of duty of 'nil' or 12% adv. in the case of textile fabrics subject to the condition that the goods should have been made from textile yarns or fabrics on which the appropriate excise duty or CVD has been paid. It may, however, be noted that Explanation II to the notification makes it abundantly clear that all fibres and yarns are deemed to have been duty paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty. Therefore, the manufacturer is eligible for the rates prescribed in the notification. The only condition that has to be satisfied is with regard to availment or non-availment of cenvat credit, as the case may be.
9 It is thus made clear that the benefit of the rate of duty should be allowed without insisting upon any documentary proof for payment of duty. However, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods on actual basis, he will be required to produce duty paying documents as prescribed under the Cenvat credit rules.” 15. A reading of the aforesaid Explanatory Note makes it clear that those who did not want to avail MODVAT facility were allowed to clear the goods without payment of any excise duty. It is in this context that the authorities were asked not to insist upon any documentary proof for payment of duty and this was transported into the notification, in the form of Explanation II. It, therefore, becomes clear that when Explanation II states that the duty shall be deemed to have been paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon, it was clearly meant that no duty was required to be paid by the manufacturers of knitted garments. Such an intention is clearly reflected in the Government's own Budgetary Notes extracted above. We, thus, hold that Explanation II to the said exemption Notification Nos. 14/2002 and 15/2002 create legal fiction and that was the precise purpose for which this explanation was added. It is trite law that a fiction created by a provision of law is to be given its due play and it must be taken to its logical conclusion ( Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog 2 ). 16. It would be pertinent to mention here that Condition No. 3 which uses the words “read with any notification for the time being in force” was put 2 (1994) 1 SCC 318
10 in place to overcome the interpretation that was given by this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries case. 17. Learned counsel for the assessees has brought to our notice another pertinent development. He submitted that because of conflicting views of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal which has answered the reference by detailed judgment rendered on 29.10.2014, accepting the plea of the assessees and rejecting the stand of the Revenue. In any case, we have independently examined the issue and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that benefit of exemption notification would be available to all these assessees. 18. As a result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and those appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI) .............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) NEW DELHI; MARCH 04, 2016.
¨Ê 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2005 M/S. SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, .....RESPONDENT(S) NOIDA WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1753 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1856 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2856 OF 2006 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6036-6038 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4886 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6749-6769 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7247-7281 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8186 OF 2010Signature Not Verified CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8187-8189 OF 2010Digitally signed byASHWANI KUMARDate: 2016.08.1117:22:39 ISTReason: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9145-9164 OF 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5473 OF 2013 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5474 OF 2013 JUDGMENTA.K. SIKRI, J. All these appeals are taken up together for hearing as the issue involved in these appeals is identical, though divergent view is taken by the different Benches of the Tribunal. Issue pertains to grant of benefit
of exemption under Notification No. 14/02-CE and 15/02-CE both dated 01.03.2002. These notifications give the benefit of concessional rate or nil rate of duty to the knitted garment manufacturers on certain conditions. One of the conditions is for full exemption is that knitted garments are exempt if manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate duty of excise has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken. If Cenvat credit is taken, the duty is at concessional rate.2. The Revenue has taken the position that the benefit of these notifications is available only when the garments have been manufactured from the duty paid fabrics and in those cases where the fabrics has not suffered excise duty, it cannot be said that the appropriate duty of excise has been paid thereon and consequently the benefit of notifications would not be available. The stand taken by the assessees, on the other hand, is that Explanation II to the exemption 3 notifications creates a legal fiction, specifying that for the purpose of conditions of this notification, textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid even in the absence of production of documents evidencing payment of duty. They also relied upon condition No. 3 of this notification. Many Benches of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') has accepted the plea of the assessees holding that benefit of exemption notification would be admissible. Many other Benches of the Tribunal have taken a contrary view, thereby accepting the plea of the Revenue and holding that Condition No. 4 is not satisfied. That is the precise reason for filing two sets of appeals, preferred both by the Revenue as well as those assessees.3. In order to state the precise question of law that falls for consideration and the backdrop in which it arises for discussion, we would take note of the facts appearing in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2005 which is preferred by an assessee.4. Assessee is an integrated textile apparel manufacturer. Assessee purchases excise duty paid yarn from the market on payment of excise
duty. Assessee does not take any MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the yarn. Assessee manufactures the knitted fabrics in its factory out of the duty paid yarn. The knitted fabric is entirely captively consumed in the manufacture of knitted apparels. The apparels are thereafter cleared outside the factory. 45. Vide Union Budget 2002, a new excise duty scheme for textile sectors was introduced. Under this scheme, vide Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, fabric manufacturers and garment manufacturers were given an option to operate under two different schemes. Under one scheme, where the manufacturers of the fabric or garment wants to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on the inputs or the capital goods, excise duty @ 75% of the normal rate of duty of 12% was levied. Under another scheme, where the manufacturers do not want to avail of the MODVAT facility, complete exemption from excise duty to the fabrics and garments was granted. The various Sl. Nos. of Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE prescribed these two alternative schemes.6. Notification No. 15/2002-CE vide Sl. No. 14 prescribed Nil rate of excise duty for "Articles of apparel, knitted or crocheted" falling under Heading 61.01, subject to the following condition: "If made from knitted or crocheted textile fabrics, whether or not processed on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the said Central Excise Tariff Act, and the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act read with any notification for the time being in force or the Additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has been paid and no credit of the duty paid on inputs or capital goods has been taken under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002." Explanation to Notification No. 15/2002-CE provided as under: "For the purposes of conditions specified below, textile yarns or fabrics shall be deemed to have been duty paid 5 even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon"7. Notification No. 15/2002-CE, as is evident from the preamble thereto, grants exemption from whole of duty of excise leviable on knitted
garments falling under heading 61.01 subject to the satisfaction of Condition No. 4 of this notification. As per Condition No. 4 of the notification, knitted garments are exempt provided these garments are manufactured out of knitted fabrics on which appropriate excise duty has been paid and no cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs or capital goods has been taken.8. Show cause notice dated 27.03.2003 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, proposing to deny the benefit of Notification No.15/2002-CE to the apparels and demanding excise duty in respect of the clearances made between 01.03.2002 to November, 2002. The assessee submitted its reply. After considering the reply filed by the assessee, Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida passed order-in-original dated 31.07.2003 confirming the duty demand imposing equivalent amount of penalty. On 20.01.2004, assessee filed appeal No. E/251/03-A before the Tribunal against the above order of the Commissioner. In that appeal, the Tribunal passed the impugned final Order Nos. 1239-1240/04-NB(A) upholding the order of the Commissioner on the aspect of denial of Notification No. 15/2002-CE to the apparels. However, the Tribunal has set aside the penalty imposed 6 on the assessee.9. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that for coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the judgment of this Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemical Industries1. In that case, exemption notification came up for consideration and interpreting the phrase "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid", the Court held that in order to avail the benefit of the notification, it was incumbent upon the manufacturer to actually pay the duty, in the following words: "An exemption notification that uses the said phrase applies to goods which have been made from duty paid material. In the same phrase, due emphasis must be given to the words "has already been paid". For the purposes of getting the benefit of the exemption under the notification, the goods must be made from raw material on which excise duty has, as a matter of fact, been paid, and has been paid at the "appropriate" or correct rate. Unless the manufacturer has paid, the
correct amount of excise duty he is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification."10. The Tribunal has also rejected the contention of the assessee predicated on Explanation II to the notification by observing that the said explanation only dispenses production of documents evidencing payment of duty and does not waive the condition of payment thereof.11. Challenging the aforesaid rationale adopted by the Tribunal in arriving at the impugned decision, the learned counsel for the Revenue made his submission on two fronts. In the first instance, it was argued that the1 (2002) 2 SCC 127 7 Tribunal erred in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries case, which is a judgment of December, 2001 wherein earlier notification was interpreted by the Court. He submitted that the position changed dramatically thereafter inasmuch as in order to overcome the condition of actual excise duty, Explanation II was specifically inserted in Notification No. 15/02 thereby creating a fiction of deemed duty paid insofar as manufacturers of knitted textile are concerned. For this purpose, he has taken us through the Budget Speech/Explanatory Notes concerning the Notification Nos. 14 and 15/2002. He, thus, argued that judgment in Dhiren Chemical Industries case was not applicable having regard to the aforesaid provision specifically incorporated in the new notifications. In this very hue, his second attempt was to argue that Explanation II of the notification was not correctly interpreted by the Tribunal, thereby defeating the very purpose for which this notification was issued.12. Learned counsel for the assessees, on the other hand, argued on the same lines on which the Tribunal has rested its decision.13. We have considered the respective submissions and are of the view that the stand taken by the assessees warrants to succeed.14. We have already reproduced the relevant portion of Notification No. 15/2002, in particular Condition No. 4 contained therein as well as Explanation II thereof. As pointed out above, in the Union Budget 2002, 8
a new excise duty scheme for textile sector was introduced, as perwhich manufacturers of the fabric or garments were given choice to optunder one of two schemes. Normal rate of duty is 12%. The twonotifications provided exemption and concessional rates respectively.Those who wanted to avail the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on theinputs or the capital goods, were supposed to pay excise duty atconcessional rate i.e. 75% of the normal rate of duty. Under the otherscheme, full exemption from payment of duty was granted to those whodid not wish to avail the MODVAT credit facility. These two schemeswere explained in the Budget Explanatory Notes issued by the CentralGovernment, relevant portion whereof is extracted below: "In the case of processed knitted fabrics of cotton, which were hitherto exempt from duty, an optional levy of 12% [8% Cenvat + 4% AED(ST)] has been prescribed. That is, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs (either on deemed basis or actual basis) and capital goods (on actual basis), he will be required to pay duty at 12% adv. [8% cenvat + 4% AED(ST)]. If he does not want to avail any credit on inputs and capital goods, he is not required to pay any duty. The rates of deemed credit for processed knitted fabrics of cotton are the same as applicable to woven fabrics. Notification Nos. 14/2002-CE and 15/2002-CE, both dated 01.03.2002 prescribes effective rates of duty of 'nil' or 12% adv. in the case of textile fabrics subject to the condition that the goods should have been made from textile yarns or fabrics on which the appropriate excise duty or CVD has been paid. It may, however, be noted that Explanation II to the notification makes it abundantly clear that all fibres and yarns are deemed to have been duty paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty. Therefore, the manufacturer is eligible for the rates prescribed in the notification. The only condition that has to be satisfied is with regard to availment or non-availment of cenvat credit, as the case may be. 9 It is thus made clear that the benefit of the rate of duty should be allowed without insisting upon any documentary proof for payment of duty. However, if the manufacturer wants to avail cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods on actual basis, he will be required to produce duty paying documents as prescribed under the Cenvat credit rules."15. A reading of the aforesaid Explanatory Note makes it clear that those who did not want to avail MODVAT facility were allowed to clear the goods without payment of any excise duty. It is in this context that the authorities were asked not to insist upon any documentary proof for
payment of duty and this was transported into the notification, in the form of Explanation II. It, therefore, becomes clear that when Explanation II states that the duty shall be deemed to have been paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon, it was clearly meant that no duty was required to be paid by the manufacturers of knitted garments. Such an intention is clearly reflected in the Government's own Budgetary Notes extracted above. We, thus, hold that Explanation II to the said exemption Notification Nos. 14/2002 and 15/2002 create legal fiction and that was the precise purpose for which this explanation was added. It is trite law that a fiction created by a provision of law is to be given its due play and it must be taken to its logical conclusion (Union of India v. Jalyan Udyog2).16. It would be pertinent to mention here that Condition No. 3 which uses the words "read with any notification for the time being in force" was put2 (1994) 1 SCC 318 10 in place to overcome the interpretation that was given by this Court in Dhiren Chemical Industries case.17. Learned counsel for the assessees has brought to our notice another pertinent development. He submitted that because of conflicting views of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal which has answered the reference by detailed judgment rendered on 29.10.2014, accepting the plea of the assessees and rejecting the stand of the Revenue. In any case, we have independently examined the issue and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that benefit of exemption notification would be available to all these assessees.18. As a result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and those appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)NEW DELHI;MARCH 04, 2016. 11 REVISEDITEM NO.302 COURT NO.12 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal No(s). 1288/2005M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUSCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Respondent(s)(With Appln. for permission to file additional documents)WITHC.A. No. 1752/2006(With C.A. No. 1753/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 1856/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2267/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2856/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4479/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4612/2010 C.A. No. 4886/2010 C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010(With Office Report) C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010(With Office Report) C.A. No. 8186/2010(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010(With Office Report) 12
C.A. No. 2260/2011(With Office Report) C.A. No. 5473/2013(With Office Report) C.A. No. 5474/2013(With Office Report)Date : 04/03/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. Pratik Raoka, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupender Singh Mar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Ms. L. Charnya, Adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Anandh. K., Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. Mr. Gautam Chugh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. M.H. Patil Adv. Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Mr. T. Chandran Nair, Adv. Mr. P.K. Shetty, Adv. For M/s. S. Narain & Co. Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv. Mr. Prabhati K.C., Adv. 13 Mr. Abinav Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A No.1288/2005, C.A. No. 4612/2010, C.A. No. 4886/2010,C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010, C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010, C.A. No.8186/2010, C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010, C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010 & C.A.
No. 2260/2011 are allowed and C.A. No. 1752/2006, C.A. No.1753/2006, C.A. No. 1856/2006, C.A. No. 2267/2006, C.A. No.2856/2006, C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008, C.A. No. 5473/2013 & C.A. No.5474/2013 are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment. Application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. C.A. No. 4479 of 2006 is de-tagged. (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 14ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.12 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal No(s). 1288/2005M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUSCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Respondent(s)(With Appln. for permission to file additional documents)WITHC.A. No. 1752/2006(With C.A. No. 1753/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 1856/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2267/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 2856/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4479/2006(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 6036-6038/2008(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 4612/2010 C.A. No. 4886/2010 C.A. No. 6749-6769/2010(With Office Report) C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8186/2010(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 8187-8189/2010(With Office Report for direction) C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010(With Office Report) 15 C.A. No. 2260/2011(With Office Report) C.A. No. 5473/2013(With Office Report) C.A. No. 5474/2013(With Office Report)Date : 04/03/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Appellant(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. Pratik Raoka, Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupender Singh Mar, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv. Ms. L. Charnya, Adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Anandh. K., Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. Mr. Gautam Chugh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. M.H. Patil Adv. Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Mr. T. Chandran Nair, Adv. Mr. P.K. Shetty, Adv. For M/s. S. Narain & Co. Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv. Mr. Prabhati K.C., Adv. 16
Mr. Abinav Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A No.1288/2005, C.A. No. 1752/2006, C.A. No. 1753/2006,C.A. No. 1856/2006, C.A. No. 2267/2006, C.A. No. 2856/2006, C.A.No. 6036-6038/2008, C.A. No. 5473/2013 & C.A. No. 5474/2013 areallowed and C.A. No. 4612/2010, C.A. No. 4886/2010, C.A. No.6749-6769/2010, C.A. No. 7247-7281/2010, C.A. No. 8186/2010, C.A.No. 8187-8189/2010, C.A. No. 9145-9164/2010 & C.A. No. 2260/2011are dismissed in terms of the signed judgment. Application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed ofaccordingly. C.A. No. 4479 of 2006 is de-tagged. (Ashwani Thakur) (Tapan Kr. Chakraborty) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Civil Appeal No(s). 5473/2013 COMMISSIONER OF CENT.EXCISE,BELAPUR Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 5474/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 10/12/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr.Rajendra Soni,adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar,adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Sandeep Narain,adv. Ms.Arti Tiwari,adv. M/s. S. Narain & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report is that Ld.counsel for the appellant and the Ld.counsel for the respondents have failed to file the statement of case in both the matters, although they were notified to do so by notice dated 28.08.2014 of this Registry. Order XIX Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 provides that if the appellant does not file a statement of case within the time, as provided for in sub rule (1), it shall be presumed that the appellant has adopted the list of dates/synopsis containing chronology of events as filed at the time of presentation of petition for seeking special …........2
ITEM NO.19 -2- leave to appeal(SLP)/appeal, as statement of case,and does not desire to file any further statement of case. The order further provides that if the respondent has entered appearance and does not file a statement of case within the time, as provided in Sub Rule(1) (i.e. 35 days) it shall be presumed that he does not desire to lodge the same. In view of the rule position cited above, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB
H ITEM NO.19 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M K HANJURA Civil Appeal No(s). 5473/2013 COMMISSIONER OF CENT.EXCISE,BELAPUR Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 5474/2013 (With Office Report) Date : 10/12/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr.Rajendra Soni,adv. Ms.Anil Katiyar,adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Sandeep Narain,adv. Ms.Arti Tiwari,adv. M/s. S. Narain & Co.,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report is that Ld.counsel for the appellant and the Ld.counsel for the respondents have failed to file the statement of case in both the matters, although they were notified to do so by notice dated 28.08.2014 of this Registry. Order XIX Rule 32 of the Supreme Court Rules,2013 provides that if the appellant does not file a statement of case within the time, as provided for in sub rule (1), it shall be presumed that the appellant has adopted theSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushma Kumari Bajaj list of dates/synopsis containing chronology of events as filed atDate: 2014.12.1216:22:32 ISTReason: the time of presentation of petition for seeking special ...........2ITEM NO.19 -2-leave to appeal(SLP)/appeal, as statement of case,and does notdesire to file any further statement of case. The order furtherprovides that if the respondent has entered appearance and doesnot file a statement of case within the time, as provided in SubRule(1) (i.e. 35 days) it shall be presumed that he does not desireto lodge the same.
In view of the rule position cited above, the matter shallbe processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court under the rules. (M K HANJURA) RegistrarSB
ÒITEM NO.92 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMAS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1288 OF 2005M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 1752 of 2006Civil Appeal NO. 1753 of 2006(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 1856 of 2006(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 2260 of 2011(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 2267 of 2006(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 2856 of 2006(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 4479 of 2006(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 4612 of 2010(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 4886 of 2010(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 6036-6038 of 2008(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 6749-6769 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 7247-7281 of 2010(With office report)Civil Appeal NO. 8186 of 2010(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 8187-8189 of 2010(With orders)Civil Appeal NO. 9145-9164 of 2010(With office report)Date: 27/09/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. ..2/-Item No. 92 - 2 - Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv. Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Gobind Kumar,Adv. Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Ms. Aarti Tiwari,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Narain,Adv. M/S. S. Narain & Co.,Adv. Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The office report indicates that both sides have filed their statement of case in the matters relating to 2008. Both sides in those cases submits that no further steps are required. List those matters before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
.ITEM NO.10 + 56 COURT NO.4 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL D.NO(s). 17320 OF 2013 [FOR PREL. HEARING]COMMISSIONER OF CENT.EXCISE,BELAPUR Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal and office report)withCA No. D17723 of 2013[with appln. for condonation of delay in filing appeal and office report)Date: 12/07/2013 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Charul Sarin, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Appeals admitted. Connect with Civil Appeal No. 1752 of 2006 - Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. M/s. Simplex Mills Co. Ltd.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |
¶ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2267 OF 2006COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. DODHIA SYNTHETICS LTD. Respondent(s)(Office report for direction)Date: 16/04/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHARFor Appellant(s) Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, Sr.Adv. Mr.Ravinder Kr.Verma, Adv. For Mr.B.K.Prasad, Adv. Mr. V.K. Verma,Adv.(NP)For Respondent(s) Mr. Jay Savla,Adv. Ms.Renuka Sahu, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel appearing for the respondent States that the issueraised in this Civil Appeal is not covered by the decision of this Court inthe case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur Vs. Ratan Melting & WireIndustries, reported in (2008) 13 SCC p.1. List this matter for final hearing in the usual course along withCivil Appeal Nos.7247-7281/2010, 1288/2005 and 4612/2010. (G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi) Court Master Asstt.Registrar
¤ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.10 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. Nos. 22-42 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6749-6769 OF 2010ONKAR INTERNATIONAL PROCESSORS P.LD.& ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.JALANDHAR Respondent(s)(Appln(s) for intervention and office report ))Date: 07/11/2012 These applications were called on for hearing today.CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA (IN CHAMBER)For Appellant(s) Ms. Amrita Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Antil, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List it before the Regular Bench to consider whether the applications are fit to be entertained.|(S.K. Rakheja) | |(Veena Khera) ||Court Master | |Court Master |
vITEM NO.77 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8187-8189 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHM/S MAHARAJA DYEING & FINISHING MILS.ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-parte stay,permission to file additional documentsand orders)Date: 14/09/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Misra, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Registry to process the matter for final hearing.| | | (S.G. SHAH) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd
\226ITEM NO.1 & 2 COURT NO.3 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1752 OF 2006COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. Respondent(s)(Office Report for direction) WITHCivil Appeal No. 1753 of 2006(Office Report for direction)Civil Appeal Nos. 6036-6038 of 2008(Office Report for direction)Civil Appeal No.1856 of 2006(With appln.(s) for stay and office report for direction)Civil Appeal No.2856/2006(With appln.(s) for stay and office report for direction)Date: 10/09/2012 These Appeals were called on for direction today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Appellant(s) Mr. Rohinton F. Nariman, SG Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG Mr. Nakul Dewan, Adv. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Adv. Ms. Yamini Khurana, Adv. Ms. Smriti Shukla, Adv. Ms. Monika Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ritin Rai, Adv. Mr. Manu Sanan, Adv. Mr. Preetish Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.For Respondent(s)CA 1752/06 Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Ms. Shalu Lal, Adv. for M/s S. Narain & Co.CA 1753/06 Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Jay Savla, Adv. Ms. Renuka Sahu, Adv. ...2/- UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the issue arising in the present appeals is not concluded by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur vs. M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [(2008) 13 SCC 1]. In view of the submission, let these Appeals be listed on the regular board as per their turn along with Civil Appeal Nos.7247-7281/2010, 1288/2005, 4612/2010.
|(VINOD LAKHINA) | |(KUSUM GULATI) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |
PITEM NO.80 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8186 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASM/S RAMESHWAR PROCESSORS Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-parte stay and orders )Date: 06/09/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms.Sukhbeer Kour Bajwa,adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Both sides have filed the respective statement of case. No further steps. Hence, place the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
® ITEM NO. 2 COURT NO.3 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6036-6038 OF 2008 CCE,MUMBAI Appellant (s) VERSUS M/S FINLAY MILLS Respondent(s) (With office report for direction) Date: 09/08/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Appellant(s) Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Yamini Khurana, Adv. Ms. Samriti Shukla, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.-on-Record For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the appeal along with C.A. No. 1752 of 2006. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |
ITEM NO.99 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2260 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASM/S SAHIB SYNTHETICS Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 31/07/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Both sides have filed their respective statement of case. It is submitted that no further steps are required. Hence, place the matter before the Hon'ble Court, as per Rule.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
(ITEM NO.97 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8186 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASM/S RAMESHWAR PROCESSORS Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay and office report ))Date: 19/07/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms./Mr. Shalini Kumar,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E RThe counter affidavit filed by the respondent was defective and the matterwas listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber on 16.4.2012. The Hon'bleJudge in Chamber had directed to file fresh counter affidavit within threeweeks. Counter affidavit has not been filed inspite of the time granted bythe Hon'ble Judge in Chamber. List the matter before the Hon'ble Courtwith an office report disclosing non compliance of the directions of theHon'ble Judge in Chamber.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||s | |Registrar |
˜ITEM NO.149 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7247-7281 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHM/S KUDU KNIT PROCESS P.LTD.& ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay,permission to file additional documents and officereport)Date: 16/07/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Pabitra Kr. Biswal, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Registry to process the matter for final hearing.| | | (S.G. SHAH) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd
ITEM NO.147 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4886 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR S.G. SHAHM/S SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.NOIDA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay)Date: 16/07/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Sinha, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Registry to process the matter for final hearing.| | | (S.G. SHAH) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd
NITEM NO.89 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6749-6769 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASONKAR INTERNATIONAL PROCESSORS P.LD.&ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.JALANDHAR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay and office report ))Date: 04/07/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.Ajay Aggarwal,adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.J.B.Ravi,adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The intervention application is defective. Cure the defects within four weeks. List the matter on 14.08.2012. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB
zITEM NO.41 COURT NO.8 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4612 OF 2010M/S AURO TEXTILE Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.CHANDIGARH Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 04/05/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD (In chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr. R.K. Srivastav, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Singh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed for, four weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to file statement of case, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed. Respondent is also given four weeks' time to file statement of case from the date the statement of case on behalf of the appellant is served on it, failing which, the consequences as provided under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 shall ensue. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4612 OF 2010M/S AURO TEXTILE Appellant(s) VersusTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, Respondent(s)CHANDIGARH O R D E R
As prayed for, four weeks' time is granted tothe learned counsel for the appellant to file statementof case, failing which, the appeal shall standdismissed. Respondent is also given four weeks' time tofile statement of case from the date the statement ofcase on behalf of the appellant is served on it,failing which, the consequences as provided under theSupreme Court Rules, 1966 shall ensue. .......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)NEW DELHI;MAY 04, 2012
ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.8 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2260 OF 2011M/S SAHIB SYNTHETICS Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 04/05/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD (In chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Anurag Kishore, adv. for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of case has already been filed on 3rd May, 2012. Respondent is given four weeks' time to file statement of case, failing which, the consequences as provided under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 shall ensue. (Sukhbir Paul Kaur) (Indu Satija) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.4 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4886 OF 2010M/S SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.NOIDA Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 25/04/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM (In Chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Twelve weeks' time is granted for filing statement of case by the appellant. Two weeks' time is granted to the counsel for respondent for curing the defects in the statement of case as pointed out by the Registry. [ Usha Bhardwaj ] [ Savita Sainani ] Court Master Court Master
êITEM NO.25 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8187-8189 OF 2010M/S MAHARAJA DYEING & FINISHING MILS.ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With office report on default)Date: 16/04/2012 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Dr.(Mrs.)Laxmi Shastri, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the office report on default. Counsel for the appellants is allowed four weeks' time tofile statement of case. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7247-7281 OF 2010M/S KUDU KNIT PROCESS P.LTD.& ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 16/04/2012 These petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Krishna Mohan Menon,Adv. Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Madhusudhan Babu,Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counsel for the appellant states that statement of case will be filed during the course of the day. Office to accept the same. Four weeks' time is granted to the respondent to file statement of case. [Madhu Bala] [Savita Sainani] Sr.PA Court Master
ITEM NO.24 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8186 OF 2010M/S RAMESHWAR PROCESSORS Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.LUDHIANA Respondent(s)(With office report on default)Date: 16/04/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.Om Prakash, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Perused the office report on default. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent be ignoredand three weeks' time is allowed to him to file fresh counteraffidavit with proper paragraphs. Four weeks' time is allowed to the counsel for theappellant to file the statement of case. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master
"ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 6749-6769 OF 2010 [FOR PREL. HEARING]ONKAR INTERNATIONAL PROCESSORS P.LD.&ETC Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.JALANDHAR Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay and office report)Date: 30/08/2010 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 4886 of 2010. (VINOD LAKHINA) (KUSUM GULATI) Court Master Court Master
øITEM NO. 13 COURT NO.5 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 4886 OF 2010 (For Prel. Hearing)M/S SPORTS & LEISURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.NOIDA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay and permission to file additionaldocuments and office report)Date: 16/07/2010 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTUFor Appellant(s) Mr. V Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Pawan Shree Agarwal, Adv. Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is admitted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2005. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ N.B. Dhyani ] Court Master Court Master
´ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.4 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1288 OF 2005 (For prel.hearing)M/S. SPORTS & LIESURE APPAREL LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay)Date: 04/03/2005 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMA PAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKERFor Appellant(s) Mr. V.Lakshmikumaran,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar,Adv. Mr.Alok Yadav,adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. R.Mohan,ASG. Mr.Rupesh Kumar,adv. Mr. P.Parmeswaran,adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is admitted. No stay. [SUMAN WADHWA] [MADHU SAXENA] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER