C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5391 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. KOYA & COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4983-4984 OF 2010 C.C.E., MADURAI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10806-10820 OF 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO.5855-5856 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) ...2/-
C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8919-8933 OF 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the revenue as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) has not held that Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (for short, 2000 Rules) does not apply but the Tribunal held that both parts of Rule 9 of 2000 Rules are not fully attracted as it is and, accordingly, it considered the matter in light of Rule 11 of 2000 Rules and passed the order. 3. The matters have been decided by the Tribunal on their own facts. No substantial question of law is involved. ...3/-
C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 3 4. Civil appeals are dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. ........................CJI. ( R.M. LODHA ) ..........................J. ( KURIAN JOSEPH ) NEW DELHI; ..........................J. SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 ( ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN )
C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 4 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.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). 5391/2007 COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. KOYA & CO. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 4983-4984/2010 (With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 10806-10820/2010 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 5855-5856/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 8919-8933/2010 (With Office Report) Date : 04/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. (Argued by) Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Natarajan, Adv. Mr . Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Ms. Akanksha, Adv. Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sundar Ramanathan, Adv. For Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv.
C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 5 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Neetu Khajuria) Sr.P.A. (Renu Diwan) Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file.)
- C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5391 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. KOYA & COMPANY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4983-4984 OF 2010 C.C.E., MADURAI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10806-10820 OF 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO.5855-5856 OF 2011 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUSSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byNEETU KHAJURIADate: 2014.09.1914:48:31 IST M/S. INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S)Reason: ...2/-C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 2 CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8919-8933 OF 2010 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE & CO. LTD. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the revenue as
well as learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") has not held that Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (for short, 2000 Rules) does not apply but the Tribunal held that both parts of Rule 9 of 2000 Rules are not fully attracted as it is and, accordingly, it considered the matter in light of Rule 11 of 2000 Rules and passed the order. 3. The matters have been decided by the Tribunal on their own facts. No substantial question of law is involved. ...3/-C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 3 4. Civil appeals are dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. ........................CJI. ( R.M. LODHA ) ..........................J. ( KURIAN JOSEPH ) NEW DELHI; ..........................J. SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 ( ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN )C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 4ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.1 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). 5391/2007COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S. KOYA & CO. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(with office report)WITHC.A. No. 4983-4984/2010(With Office Report for Direction) C.A. No. 10806-10820/2010(With Office Report) C.A. No. 5855-5856/2011(With Office Report)
C.A. No. 8919-8933/2010(With Office Report)Date : 04/09/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMANFor Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. (Argued by) Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. G. Natarajan, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv. Ms. Akanksha, Adv. Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sundar Ramanathan, Adv. For Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv.C.A.No.5391/2007 etc. 5 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Neetu Khajuria) (Renu Diwan) Sr.P.A. Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file.)
SECTION - III IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4983-84 OF 2010 AND 5855-5856 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai, Etc. ......APPELLANT -VERSUS- M/s. The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. .........RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT FOR PRE-FINAL HEARING It is submitted that service of notice of lodgment of petition of the appeal in the matter above mentioned is complete and both the parties are represented through their respective Advocates. Original record has been received from the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that counsel for both the parties have filed statement of case in both the appeals. The office report for pre-final hearing is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders. Dated this the 20th day of September, 2013. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section 2. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate B6/10, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ÂITEM NO.98 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). 4983-4984 OF 2010CCE, MADURAI Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. ETC. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay)WITHC.A. NOS. 5855-5856/2011(With Appln.(s) for stay and with Office Report)Date: 23/09/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Aseem Kr. Katoch,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Both sides have filed their respective statement of case. No further steps are required. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. | | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.13 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). 4983-4984 OF 2010CCE, MADURAI Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. ETC. Respondent(s)(With office report for direction)Date: 10/05/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWARFor Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Adv. For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed on behalf of the appellant, four weeks' time is granted to file statement of case. |(Neetu Khajuria) |(Sneh Bala Mehra) ||Sr.P.A. |Court Master |
ITEM NO.115 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). 8919-8933 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR M.A. SAYEEDCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.TRICHY Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO.LTD. Respondent(s)withCA Nos.10806-10820/2010(with office report)Date: 12/04/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The matter is complete in all respects. No further steps required. The matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as perrules.| | | (M.A. SAYEED) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd
ÌITEM NO.24 COURT NO.13 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). 4983-4984 OF 2010CCE, MADURAI Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. THE INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD. ETC. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)WITH Civil Appeal NO. 10806-10820 of 2010(Office report on default)Civil Appeal NO. 8919-8933 of 2010(Office report on default)Date: 11/02/2013 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR (In chambers)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Kr. Dubey, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. M.P.Devanath, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 4983-4984/2010 Counsel for the Appellant prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file statement of case. Counsel for the respondent may also file their statement of case within four weeks thereafter. C.A. No. 8919-8933 & 10806-10820/2010 Counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted six weeks' time to file statement of case in both the appeals. (NAVEEN KUMAR) (SNEH LATA SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
HITEM 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). 5391 OF 2007 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. KOYA & CO. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report)WITHC.A.No. 4983-4984/2010WITHC.A.No. 5855-5856/2011WITHC.A.NO. 8919-8933/2010Date: 01/02/2013 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. Mr. Pritha Srikumar Iyer, 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. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per the rules.| | | || | | || | | || | |(SUNIL THOMAS) || | |Registrar || | | || | | || | | || | | ||j | | |
ITEM NO.33 Court No.13 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). 5391 OF 2007COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S. KOYA & CO. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 26/09/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU (IN CHAMBERS)For Appellant(s) Mr. Rohit Minocha, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikhil Nayyar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant is granted four weeks time from today to file statement of case. (Rajesh Dham) (Sharda Kapoor) Court Master Court Master