Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2018 / Diary 10251

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR II v. C. S. DOSHI (HUF)

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10251/2018

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

20-09-2024

Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Petitioner

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR II

Respondent

C. S. DOSHI (HUF)

Primary Holding

When the Revenue's circular raises the monetary threshold for filing appeals to the Supreme Court, pending appeals where the tax effect falls below the revised threshold are liable to be disposed of without adjudication on merits, with questions of law expressly left open.

PDF 1 PDF 2 PDF 3 PDF 4 PDF 5 PDF 6 PDF 7 PDF 8 PDF 9 PDF 10 PDF 11 PDF 12 PDF 13 PDF 14 PDF 15 PDF 16 PDF 17 PDF 18 PDF 19 PDF 20 PDF 21 PDF 22 PDF 23 PDF 24 PDF 25 PDF 26 PDF 27 PDF 28 PDF 29 PDF 30 PDF 31 PDF 32 PDF 33 PDF 34 PDF 35 PDF 36 PDF 37 PDF 38 PDF 39 PDF 40 PDF 41 PDF 42 PDF 43 PDF 44 PDF 45 PDF 46 PDF 47 PDF 48 PDF 49 PDF 50 PDF 51 PDF 52 PDF 53 PDF 54 PDF 55 PDF 56 PDF 57 PDF 58 PDF 59 PDF 60 PDF 61 PDF 62 PDF 63 PDF 64 PDF 65 PDF 66 PDF 67 PDF 68 PDF 69 PDF 70 PDF 71 PDF 72 PDF 73 PDF 74 PDF 75 PDF 76 PDF 77 PDF 78 PDF 79 PDF 80 PDF 81 PDF 82 Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 7272 of 2005 The Commissioner of Central Excise .... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Grasim Industries Ltd ....Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal Nos 5139-5141/2015 Civil Appeal No 5979/2009 Civil Appeal Nos 1389-1392/2008 Civil Appeal No 113/2021 Civil Appeal No 4376/2008 Civil Appeal No 5225/2013 Civil Appeal Nos 2955-2974/2009 Civil Appeal Nos 6735-6738/2009 Civil Appeal Nos 6499-6501/2010 Civil Appeal Nos 4693-4694/2010 Civil Appeal No 6561/2019 Civil Appeal No 111/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 248-253/2016 Civil Appeal Nos 7214-7216/2010 SLP(C) No 36412/2014 1

Civil Appeal No 4986/2012 Civil Appeal No 10533/2011 Civil Appeal No 2952/2013 Civil Appeal No 6509/2016 Civil Appeal No 4288/2013 Civil Appeal No 5259/2012 Civil Appeal No 7516/2012 Civil Appeal Nos 861-865/2016 Civil Appeal No 14145/2015 Civil Appeal No 14181/2015 Civil Appeal No 9327/2013 Civil Appeal No 7766/2014 Civil Appeal Nos 6700-6703/2014 Civil Appeal Nos 1327-1329/2015 Civil Appeal Nos 6732-6733/2015 Civil Appeal No 5939/2016 Civil Appeal No 5940/2016 Civil Appeal No 9829/2017 Civil Appeal No 6092/2017 Civil Appeal Nos 11313-11314/2018 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 40710/2019) SLP(C) No 16438/2014 Civil Appeal No 7613/2019 Civil Appeal No 281/2016 2

Civil Appeal Nos 6117-6118/2019 Civil Appeal No 4084/2020 SLP(C) No 18266/2018 SLP(C) No 22204/2018 Civil Appeal No 9694/2018 SLP(C) No 22202/2018 SLP(C) No 29165/2018 Civil Appeal No 10715/2018 Civil Appeal No 1376/2022 SLP(C) No 9057/2023 SLP(C) No 7780/2023 Civil Appeal No 1465/2018 Civil Appeal Nos 4968-4969/2016 Civil Appeal No 9352/2013 Civil Appeal Nos 11090-11092/2017 Civil Appeal Nos 3693-3748/2016 Civil Appeal No 3194/2019 Civil Appeal Nos 10090-10092/2016 Civil Appeal Nos 11222-11223/2017 Civil Appeal No 8202/2016 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 9270/2017) Civil Appeal Nos 12030-12035/2016 Civil Appeal Nos 6279-6289/2019 3

Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 15290/2020) Civil Appeal No 9334/2017 Civil Appeal No 19848/2017 Civil Appeal Nos 7858-7860/2019 Civil Appeal No 10754/2017 Civil Appeal No 10498/2017 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 23209/2017) Civil Appeal No 3814/2024 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 21659/2018) Civil Appeal No 696/2018 Civil Appeal Nos 10739-10740/2018 Civil Appeal Nos 1327-1331/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 11144-11148/2018 Civil Appeal No 1326/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 6719-6720/2022 Civil Appeal Nos 10080-10081/2018 Civil Appeal No 6992/2019 SLP(C) /2024 (Diary No 23441/2020 ) Civil Appeal Nos 99-102/2019 Civil Appeal No 12257/2018 Civil Appeal Nos 710-711/2019 Civil Appeal Nos 1222-1223/2020 4

Civil Appeal No 5269/2019 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 28334/2019) Civil Appeal Nos 122-123/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 126-127/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 112-113/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 128-129/2020 Civil Appeal No 117/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 7040-7041/2019 Civil Appeal No 4856/2022 Civil Appeal No 1487/2023 Civil Appeal Nos 8451-8453/2019 Civil Appeal Nos 5601-5603/2019 Civil Appeal No 4988/2021 Civil Appeal No 4980/2021 Civil Appeal No 5098/2021 Civil Appeal No 6387/2019 Civil Appeal No 6085/2019 (@CA Nos 6081-6085/2019) Civil Appeal No 5846/2023 Civil Appeal No 7791/2019 Civil Appeal No 9000/2019 SLP(C) No 11933/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 304-309/2020 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 42952/2019) 5

Civil Appeal No 2433/2020 Civil Appeal Nos 1914-1916/2020 Civil Appeal No 3507/2020 Civil Appeal No 904/2021 Civil Appeal Nos 547-551/2021 Civil Appeal Nos 5642-5643/2021 Civil Appeal No 5585/2021 Civil Appeal Nos 5749-5750/2021 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No /2024 (Diary No 13258/2021) Civil Appeal No 4754/2021 Civil Appeal No 5956/2021 Civil Appeal Nos 1232-1233/2022 Civil Appeal No 8448/2022 Civil Appeal No 4232/2023 Civil Appeal Nos 4233-4234/2023 Civil Appeal No 3905/2023 Civil Appeal No 3917/2023 Civil Appeal No /2024 (Diary No 24606/2023) Civil Appeal No 6172/2023 Civil Appeal No 58/2024 Civil Appeal No 5464/2024 6

O R D E R 1 Delay condoned. 2 By a Circular dated 6 August 2024 of the Revenue Division, Judicial Cell (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs), Ministry of Finance, the monetary threshold of the tax effect for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court has been increased from Rupees two crores to Rupees five crores. The Additional Solicitor General has confirmed that the tax effect in the present matters is less than Rupees five crores. 3 Taking note of the above statement, the present Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Any questions of law arising from the Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions are left open. 4 Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ..…..…....…........……………….…........CJI. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] … ..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [J B Pardiwala] … ..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Manoj Misra] New Delhi; September 20, 2024 -S- 7

ITEM Nos.38 to 74, 75 to 125,127-131,133-135 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII-A 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).7272/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 5139-5141/2015 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 4/2015 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 5979/2009 (XII) (WITH IA No. 2/2009 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s).1389-1392/2008 (IV-A) C.A. No. 113/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 65991/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 7934/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 65988/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 7933/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s).4376/2008 (XII) C.A. No. 5225/2013 (XII) Civil Appeal No(s). 2955-2974/2009 (IV-A) C.A. No. 6735-6738/2009 (XII) (WITH IA No. 35926/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION) C.A. No. 6499-6501/2010 (IV-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 4693-4694/2010 (XVII-A) C.A. No. 6561/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 89932/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 111/2020 (XVII-A) 8

(WITH IA No. 89567/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 89568/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 248-253/2016 (XII) Civil Appeal No(s). 7214-7216/2010 (IV-A) SLP(C) No. 36412/2014 (XII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 4986/2012(IV) C.A. No. 10533/2011 (IV-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 2952/2013 (III) Civil Appeal No(s). 6509/2016 (XII) Civil Appeal No(s). 4288/2013 (IV-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 5259/2012 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 7516/2012 (IV-A) C.A. No. 861-865/2016 (XIV-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 14145/2015 (IV-C) C.A. No. 14181/2015 (IV-C) Civil Appeal No(s). 9327/2013 (XII) Civil Appeal No(s). 7766/2014 (IV-C) Civil Appeal No(s). 6700-6703/2014 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 1327-1329/2015 (IV-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 6732-6733/2015 (III) C.A. No. 5939/2016 (XVII-A) C.A. No. 5940/2016 (XVII-A) C.A. No. 9829/2017 (XVII-A) 9

C.A. No. 6092/2017 (III-A) (WITH IA No. 2/2017 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 11313-11314/2018 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.160498/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.160504/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.160502/2018-STAY APPLICATION) C.A. Diary No(s). 40710/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 185365/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 185366/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 64535/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 185367/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) SLP(C) No. 16438/2014 (XII-A) C.A. No. 7613/2019 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.141903/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.141904/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Civil Appeal No(s). 281/2016 (IV-A) (WITH IA No. 56586/2022 - AMENDMENT IN CAUSE TITLE) C.A. No. 6117-6118/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 111235/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 4084/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 132978/2020 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 132979/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 18266/2018 (IV-C) (WITH IA No. 71538/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 22204/2018 (IV-C) C.A. No. 9694/2018 (IV-C) SLP(C) No. 22202/2018 (IV-C) (WITH IA No. 167157/2023 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) SLP(C) No. 29165/2018 (IV-C) C.A. No. 10715/2018 (IV-C) (WITH IA No. 167164/2023 - AMENDMENT IN CAUSE TITLE) 10

C.A. No. 1376/2022 (XII) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.14931/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 9057/2023 (IV-A) (WITH IA No. 71564/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 7780/2023 (IV-A) (WITH IA No.63494/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.63495/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 1465/2018 (IV-C) Civil Appeal No(s). 4968-4969/2016 (XVII-A) C.A. No. 9352/2013 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 2/2013 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 11090-11092/2017 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 76591/2017 - EX-PARTE STAY) Civil Appeal No(s). 3693-3748/2016 (IV-A) (WITH IA No. 112533/2023 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION) C.A. No. 3194/2019 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 10090-10092/2016 (XII) C.A. No. 11222-11223/2017 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 79479/2017 - EX-PARTE STAY) Civil Appeal No(s). 8202/2016 (XII) Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 9270/2017 (XII) (WITH IA No.42446/2017-STAY APPLICATION, IA No. 42445/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) C.A. No. 12030-12035/2016 (III) C.A. No. 6279-6289/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 106099/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 15290/2020 (XVII-A) 11

(WITH IA No. 94933/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 94932/2020 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 94934/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Civil Appeal No(s). 9334/2017 (XII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.50173/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.50175/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Civil Appeal No(s). 19848/2017 (III-A) C.A. No. 7858-7860/2019 (XVII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.145955/2019-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.145951/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL and IA No.145953/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Civil Appeal No(s). 10754/2017 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 72671/2017 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 10498/2017 (IV) (WITH IA No. 58188/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 58186/2017 - STAY APPLICATION) CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 23209/2017 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 196026/2024 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) C.A. No. 3814/2024 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.37069/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.37070/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.37071/2024-EX-PARTE STAY) Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 21659/2018 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.107357/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.107359/2018-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.107353/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL and IA No.107356/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Civil Appeal No(s). 696/2018 (III) (WITH IA No. 172840/2019 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No. 183948/2018 – MODIFICATION) C.A. No. 10739-10740/2018 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 144654/2018 - STAY APPLICATION) 12

C.A. No. 1327-1331/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 270/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 146586/2018 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 11144-11148/2018 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 156894/2018 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 1326/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 182263/2018 - EX-PARTE STAY) C.A. No. 6719-6720/2022 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 121255/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 121254/2022 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 10080-10081/2018 (XVII-A) C.A. No. 6992/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 117055/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) SLP(C) Diary No(s). 23441/2020 (XII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 99-102/2019 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 12257/2018 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 710-711/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.111/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.112/2019-STAY APPLICATION ) Civil Appeal No(s). 1222-1223/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.55543/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.55545/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.55544/2019-STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 5269/2019 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal Diary No(s). 28334/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 140528/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL, IA No. 140530/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 140533/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 122-123/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 121014/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY) 13

C.A. No. 126-127/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 123715/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY) C.A. No. 112-113/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 107298/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY) C.A. No. 128-129/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 117057/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 117058/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 198723/2022 - SUBSTITUTED SERVICE) C.A. No. 117/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 108897/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY) Civil Appeal No(s). 7040-7041/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 128052/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 128048/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 4856/2022 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 100483/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 100484/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Civil Appeal No(s). 1487/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 174859/2022 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 7929/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 7927/2020 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 8451-8453/2019 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 5601-5603/2019 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 4988/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 98066/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98065/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 4980/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 96176/2020 - EX-PARTE STAY) C.A. No. 5098/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 79974/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 6387/2019 (XII) (WITH IA No.113875/2019-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ) 14

Civil Appeal No(s).6085/2019 (@CA Nos 6081-6085/2019) (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 110963/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) C.A. No. 5846/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.176455/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.176457/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.176459/2023-STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s).7791/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 148792/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY) Civil Appeal No(s). 9000/2019 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 167660/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 167661/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 11933/2020 (IV-C) Civil Appeal No(s). 304-309/2020 (XVII-A) CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 42952/2019 (WITH IA No. 189389/2019 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 189394/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 189393/2019 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 2433/2020 (III-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 1914-1916/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 31460/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 31459/2020 - STAY APPLICATION) Miscellaneous Application No. 819/2021 in C.A. No. 2801/2018 (XII) (WITH IA No. 26509/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS) Civil Appeal No(s). 3507/2020 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 66028/2020 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 66029/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Civil Appeal No(s). 904/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 76971/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 71077/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 76970/2020 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 547-551/2021 (XVII-A) Civil Appeal No(s). 5642-5643/2021 (XVII-A) 15

(WITH IA No. 130375/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 130594/2020 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 5585/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 16283/2021 - EX-PARTE STAY) Civil Appeal No(s). 5749-5750/2021 (III) (WITH IA No. 134604/2021 - AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION) Special Leave Petition Diary No(s). 13258/2021 (III) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.111992/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.111996/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Civil Appeal No(s). 4754/2021 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 98091/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 98586/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 5956/2021 (XVII) (WITH IA No. 123140/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 123139/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 1232-1233/2022 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 76049/2022 - AMENDMENT IN CAUSE TITLE, IA No. 19407/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 68935/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Civil Appeal No(s). 8448/2022 (IV-A) (WITH IA No. 149690/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Civil Appeal No(s). 4232/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No.85410/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.85412/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.85411/2023-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.85413/2023- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) C.A. No. 4233-4234/2023 (XVII-A) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.110012/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.110011/2023-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.110009/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Civil Appeal No(s). 3905/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 90114/2023 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 90115/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) 16

Civil Appeal No(s).3917/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 86173/2023 - EX-PARTE STAY) CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 24606/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 122860/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 122863/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 122861/2023 - STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s). 6172/2023 (XVII-A) (WITH IA No. 184680/2023 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 184682/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) C.A. No. 58/2024 (XVII-A) (IA No.260846/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.260844/2023-STAY APPLICATION) Civil Appeal No(s).5464/2024 (XVII-A) Date : 20-09-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA For Appellant(s) Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv. Mr. V.c. Bharathi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Mr. N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Sughosh Subramaniyam, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. T.V. Lakshmanan, Adv. Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR 17

Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR Mr. Sanjay Grover, Adv. Mr. Shaffi Mather, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. M.S. Ananth, Adv. Mr. Karan Verma, Adv. Mr. P.R. Renganath, Adv. Mr. M. Kannan, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. Mr. Y K Kapur, Adv. Mr. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Mr. J.K. Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vandana Mittal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Aakash Bhan, Adv. Mr. Nityanand Mahato, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Mr. Saurabh Suman Sinha, Adv. 18

Ms. Chitra Y. Parande, Adv. Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv. Rishibha Shivhare, Adv. M/s AP&J Chamber Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. N.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kapil Gautam, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E.R. Kumar, Adv. Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv. Ms. Apurba Pattanayak, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co. Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Ruche Anand, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Anay Banhatti, Adv. Ms. Asmita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dhanistha Kawale, Adv. Ms. Ankita Vashishtash, Adv. Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Arvind Datar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv. Mr. Shamik Shirishbhai Sanjanwala, AOR Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jamalpur, Adv. Mr. S. Jaikumar, Adv. Mr. Karik Jindal, Adv. 19

Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Samir Mudgil, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Likivi Jakhalu, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Mr. N. Prasad, Adv. Ms. T. Aarchana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr. Arvind P Datar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Sanjenbam, Adv. M/S. K J John And Co, AOR Mr. Ankur Mittal, AOR Mr. S. Jaikumar, Adv. Mr. Karik Jindal, Adv. Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Prashant Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Ms. Akshita Chand, Adv. Mr. Madan Chandra Karnatak, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Neha Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Umang Motiyani, Adv. Ms. Falguni Gupta, Adv. 20

Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ashish Gopal Garg, Adv. Ms. Rekha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankesh Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Shweta Garg, AOR Mr. K. S. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ruche Anand, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Rahul Krishna, Adv. Mr. Keshav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devavrat Anand, Adv. Mr. Rajkumar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Praveen Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Rahul Pratap, AOR Mr. Y K Kapur, Adv. Mr. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Mr. Amrendra Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Maneesh, Adv. Mr. Piyush Malik, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Malakar, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhinder, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Preana Amitabh, Adv. 21

Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I, AOR Mr. Ujjwal A Rana, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Mehta, Adv. M/S. Gagrat And Co Mr. P. K. Manohar, AOR Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalyan, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Reena Asthana Khair, Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR Mr. Vijayesh Atre, Adv. Mr. Saif Zia, Adv. Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mr. Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Suhas Urgunde, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. Sanjay Grover, Adv. Mr. K.V. Mohan, Adv. Mr. Shivlal Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. S Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Ruche Anand, Adv. Mr. Lalitendra Gulani, Adv. Ms. Sneha Ghosh, Adv. 22

Ms. M Sarada, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gulani, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Mr. Krishanu Barua, Adv. M/S. Veritas Legis, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. M.S. Ananth, Adv. Mr. Karan Verma, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. S Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ruche Anand, Adv. Mr. M.H. Patil, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Narain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Patil, Adv. M/S. S. Narain & Co. Mr. Krishnamohan K., AOR Ms. Dania Nayyar, Adv. Mr. Tejaswi Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Saurabh S Sinha, Adv. Ms. Chitra Y Parande, Adv. Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sunil Narayanan Nsrayanan, Adv. M/S. Axess Legal Corp, AOR Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalyan, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tyagi, Adv. 23

Ms. Reena Asthana Khair, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR Mr. Rohit Rao N, Adv. Ms. Devahuti Tamuli, Adv. Mr. Krishanu Barua, Adv. Ms. Archana Sahadeva, AOR Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR Mr. Pramod B. Agarwala, AOR Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Venkat Prasad, Adv. Mr. S. Jaikumar, Adv. Mr. Karik Jindal, Adv. Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Raja S., Adv. Mr. Aakash Elengo, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Sonal Jain, AOR Mr. Praveen Kumar, AOR 24

Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Ms. Shilpa Balani, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sateeja, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR Mr. Raghav Dutt, Adv. Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Venkat Prasad, Adv. M/S. Pba Legal, AOR Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Naveen Bindal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Ms. Shilpa Balani, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Praveena Gautam, AOR Mr. Pawan Shukla, Adv. Ms. Kanika Kalyan, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Reena Asthana Khair, Adv. Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. A.K. Prasad, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Shurbhi Sinha, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR 25

Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. S. Jaikumar, Adv. Mr. Karik Jindal, Adv. Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. S Sunil, Adv. Mr. Jagdishn, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sunil Narayanan Nsrayanan, Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jain, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. S Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ruche Anand, Adv. Mr. KS Naveen Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. S Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Adv. Ms. Ruche Anand, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Atreya Gc, Adv. Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. S Sunil, Adv. Mr. Jagdish N, Adv. Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. 26

Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Mr. Ruche Anand, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Ms. Shilpa Balani, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Sawrup, Adv. Ms. Manavi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Monish Panda, Adv. Mr. Ayush Sharma, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Mr. Mahir Khanna, Adv. Ms. Jyotika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Prakash Shah, Adv. Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Adv. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv. Mr. Mohit Raval, Adv. Mr. Yugantar Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR 27

Mr. Karan Talwar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, Adv. Mr. M V Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Manish Tiwari , AOR Mr. Basa Mithun Shashank, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. MV Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Rk Tanwar, Adv. Mr. Nihar Ranjan Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, AOR Mr. S Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Adv. Mrs. Ruche Anand, Adv. Mr. Anant Gautam, AOR Mr. Kartik Jindal, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Samir Mugil, Adv. Ms. Liki Jhakalu, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Nilesh Sahay, Adv. Mr. Saurabh S Sinha, Adv. Ms. Chitra Y Parande, Adv. Mr. Gautam Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Sujit Ghosh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mannat Waraich, AOR Mr. Ashray Behura, Adv. Ms. Archana Sahadeva, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Delay condoned. 28

2 The appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order. 3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Miscellaneous Application No. 819/2021 in C.A. No. 2801/2018 4 The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of in terms of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No 7272 of 2005. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file) 29

CA 7272/2005 ITEM NO.236 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII-A BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL LOK ADALAT PROCEEDING OF Civil Appeal No.7272/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.3292/2018 (IV) S.L.P.(C) Nos.14081-14084/2018 (XV) Date : 02-08-2024 PRESENT: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA MR. SIDDHARTHA DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE MS. KAVEETA WADIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE For Appellant(s) Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR CA 3292/2018 & Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR SLPC 14081-83/2018 1

CA 7272/2005 A W A R D Civil Appeal No 3292 of 2018 1 On mentioning, the appeal is taken on Board. 2 The dispute between the parties has been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat. 3 The tax effect of the subject matter of the appeal is falling below the threshold contained in the circular dated 22 August 2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. 4 The appeal is disposed of as not pressed. 5 Court fee be refunded as per rules. SLP (C) Nos 14081-14083 of 2018 1 The dispute between the parties has been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat. 2 The tax effect of the subject matter of the petitions is falling below the threshold contained in the circular dated 22 August 2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. 2

CA 7272/2005 3 The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of as not pressed. 4 Court fee be refunded as per rules. ..…....…........……………….…..….. ..…....…........……………….….....… [Kaveeta Wadia] [Siddhartha Dave] ..…....…........……………….….J. ..…....…........……………….….…..J. [Manoj Misra] [J B Pardiwala] ………………… .….…………….…....CJI. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] 3

ITEM NO.269 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVII-A BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL LOK ADALAT PROCEEDING OF Civil Appeal No.7272/2005 THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH MANAGER Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.3292/2018 (IV) SLP(C) No. 14081-14084/2018 (XV) Date : 29-07-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today. PRESENT: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA MR. KAPIL SIBAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. VIPIN NAIR, ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD For Appellant(s) Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Adv. Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. M.P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR A W A R D 1 List the Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court Special Lok Adalat on 2 August 2024. (CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar

ITEM NO.23 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV-A 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 RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Civil Appeal No(s). 95/2016 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S JSW CEMENT LTD. Respondent(s) (FOR PRE-FINAL HEARING ) Date : 01-05-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Service is complete. Ld. Counsel for the parties have not filed Statement of case within the prescribed period. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court as per rules. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar CD

ITEM NO.53 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII 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 RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Civil Appeal No(s). 6816-6819/2018 COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI II Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ACE INDIA Respondent(s) Date : 02-04-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr.H.K.Naik,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As per postal tracking report qua common sole respondent in C.A.Nos.6816-17/2018 and 6818-19/2018, notice has been received back undelivered. Ld.counsel for the petitioner shall, within a period of four weeks, file the fresh particulars of the above respondent in both matters and he shall also take fresh steps for the service of notice to him within the same period. List the matter again on 19.08.2019. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar SB

ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV-A 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). 95/2016 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S JSW CEMENT LTD. Respondent(s) (OR ON DEFAULT IN CA 95/2016 TO BE LISTED) Date : 25-03-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv. For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant is granted three weeks’ further time to file affidavit of valuation. It is made clear that no further time will be granted. (SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (RAJ RANI NEGI) AR CUM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVII 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.6816-6819/2018 COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI II Appellant(s) VERSUS ACE INDIA ETC. ETC. Respondent(s) Date : 11-02-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN [IN CHAMBERS] For Appellant(s) Mr. H.K. Naik, ADV. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing spare copies of the petition for issuance of notice is condoned. (RACHNA) (HARI SWAROOP PARASHER) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A 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). 6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 95/2016 (IV-A) Only C.A. No. 95/2016 is listed Date : 05-02-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 95/2016 The appellant is granted another four weeks’ time to file affidavit of valuation. (MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

1 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.9 SECTION IV-A 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).6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE RESPONDENT(S) (C.A Nos. 95, 5940, 5945, 5943, 5939/2016, 10433/2017, 9829, 18479, 18478/2017 2321-2336/2018, 11221/17 and D.No.17617/2017 are to be listed before Hon'ble Judge-in-Chamber) WITH C.A.No.5940/2016 (XVII) C.A.No.5945/2016 (XVII) C.A.No.5943/2016 (XVII) C.A.No.5939/2016 (XVII) C.A.No.95/2016 (IV-A) C.A.No.9829/2017 (XVII) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.52130/2017-EX-PARTE STAY and IA No.52128/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s).17617/2017 (XVII) C.A.No.10433/2017 (XVII) C.A.No.11221/2017 (XVII) C.A.No.18478/2017 (XVII) C.A.No.18479/2017 (XVII) C.A.No.2321-2336/2018 (III) Date : 27-11-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA [IN CHAMBER]

2 For Appellant(s) Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr.B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. Mr.M.P. Devanath, AOR Mr.Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr.Sanjay Grover, Adv. Mr.K.V.Mohan, Adv. Mr.Shiv Lal Singh, Adv. Mr.M.P. Devanath, AOR Mr.Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr.Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr.R.Parthasarathy, AOR Mr.B.Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr.Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A.No.10433/2017 Time for filing application for withdrawal of civil appeal(s) is granted. Post the matter before the Court after the application for withdrawal is filed. C.A.No.11221/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant states that deficit court fees of Rs.3,000/- has since been filed as per the latest office report. Taken on record. List the matter before the Court.

3 C.A.No.18478/2017 & C.A.No.18479/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant has filed affidavit of valuation and ad-valorem court fees. Taken on record. List the matters before the Court. C.A.No.95/2016, C.A.No.5945/2016 and C.A.No.5939/2016 Four weeks’ time is granted for filing affidavits of valuation. (Ashok Raj Singh) (Chander Bala) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.17 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV-A 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 MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Civil Appeal No(s). 6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) (C.A Nos. 95, 5940, 5945, 5943, 5939/2016, 10433/2017, 9829, 18479, 18478/2017 2321-2336/2018, 11221/17 and D. No. 17617/2017 are to be listed on 04.10.2018(R) only. ) WITH C.A. No. 5940/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 5945/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 5943/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 5939/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 95/2016 (IV-A) C.A. No. 9829/2017 (XVII) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.52130/2017-EX-PARTE STAY and IA No.52128/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s). 17617/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 10433/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 11221/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 18478/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 18479/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 2321-2336/2018 (III) Date : 04-10-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR

ITEM NO.17 2 Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. Arun Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. Nos. 5940,5945,5943,5939/2016, C.A. Nos. 10433, 9829,18479, 18478/2017 and C.A. No. 2321-2336/2018 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has failed to file affidavit of valuation and required court fee despite opportunities. Viewed in that context, the matters be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. Await orders. List thereafter. C.A. No. 11221/2017 and Diary No. 17617/2017 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has failed to file short deficit court fee despite opportunities. Viewed in that context, the matters be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. Await orders. List thereafter.

ITEM NO.17 3 C.A. No. 95/2016 Ld. Counsel for the appellant has failed to file affidavit of valuation despite opportunities. Viewed in that context, the matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. Await orders. List thereafter. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar MG

ITEM NO.49 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION XVII 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 MR. MANOJ JAIN Civil Appeal No(s). 6816-6819/2018 COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI II Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ACE INDIA Respondent(s) Date : 04-09-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr.H.K.Naik,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Ld.counsel for the petitioner has not filed the spare copies for issuance of notice to the respondents within the period prescribed under the rules. The matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. Await orders and list thereafter. MANOJ JAIN Registrar SB

ITEM NO.43 1 REGISTRAR COURT. 2 SECTION IV-A 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 MR. MANOJ JAIN Civil Appeal No(s). 6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) (C.A Nos. 95, 5940, 5945, 5943, 5939/2016, 10433/2017, 9829, 18479, 18478/2017 2321-2336/2018, 11221/17 and D. No. 17617/2017 are to be listed on 16.08.2018(R) only. WITH C.A. No. 5940/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 5945/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 5943/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 5939/2016 (XVII) C.A. No. 95/2016 (IV-A) C.A. No. 9829/2017 (XVII) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.52130/2017-EX-PARTE STAY and IA No.52128/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Diary No(s). 17617/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 10433/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 11221/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 18478/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 18479/2017 (XVII) C.A. No. 2321-2336/2018 (III) Date : 16-08-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Arun Kumar Singh,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR

ITEM NO.43 2 Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. Nos. 95,5940, 5945, 5943, 5939/2016, 10433/2017, 9829, 18479, 18478/2017 2321-2336/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant shall within a period of four weeks’, as a last chance file the affidavit of valuation alongwith required court fee. C.A. No. 11221/17 The office report indicates that Ld. Counsel for the appellant has filed the deficit court fee but the same is short by Rs. 3000/-. Four weeks time, as last chance is given to file the same. D. No. 17617/2017 The office report indicates that the vakalatnama filed by Mr. Punit Tyagi, Ld. Counsel is defective. Ld. counsel shall within a period of four weeks’, as a last chance cure the defects whatever have been found in the said vakalatnama pointed out by the Registry. List again on 4.10.2018. MANOJ JAIN Registrar MG

ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.2 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 17031/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-03-2017 in AN Nos. 324/2011, 325/2011, 345/2011 and 346/2011 passed by the Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI II Appellant(s) VERSUS ACE INDIA Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.81239/2018-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.81237/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ) Date : 17-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv Mr. Shekhar Vyas, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Ms. Shivani Misra, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Issue notice. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (ASHA SONI) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.55           REGISTRAR COURT. 2              SECTION IV­A                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 MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Civil Appeal  No(s).  6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD.                           Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE              Respondent(s)   WITH  C.A. No. 5940/2016 (XVII)  C.A. No. 5945/2016 (XVII)  C.A. No. 5943/2016 (XVII)  C.A. No. 5939/2016 (XVII)  C.A. No. 5306/2015 (XVII)  C.A. No. 95/2016 (IV­A)  C.A. No. 9829/2017 (XVII) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.52130/2017­EX­PARTE STAY and IA  No.52128/2017­CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL)  Diary No(s). 17617/2017 (XVII)  C.A. No. 10433/2017 (XVII)  C.A. No. 11221/2017 (XVII)  C.A. No. 18478/2017 (XVII)  C.A. No. 18479/2017 (XVII)  C.A. No. 2321­2336/2018 (III)   Date : 03­07­2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s)                     Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR                     Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR …..2

ITEM NO.55 -2-                    Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, AOR                     For Respondent(s)   Ms.Ashwini Chandrasekaran,Adv.                     Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR                     Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, AOR                     Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR                     Mr. R. Parthasarathy, AOR                     Ms.Tessy Varghese,Adv.                     Mr. K. V. Mohan, AOR                     Mr.Arun Kumar Singh,Adv.                     Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR                     Ms.Renuka Sahu,Adv.                     Mr.Jay Savla,Adv.                                UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R Civil Appeal No.6542/2011 Ld.counsel for the parties have not filed the statement of case within the statutory period. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.   Civil Appeal No.5306/2015 Matter is already ordered to be listed before the Hon’ble Court. Hence, Registry to list accordingly. Civil Appeal Nos. 95, 5940, 5945, 5943, 5939/2016, 10433/2017, 9829, 18479, 18478/2017 & 2321­2336/2018 Ld.counsel for the appellant shall file the affidavit of valuation with the required court fee within four weeks. Civil Appeal Nos. 11221/2017 Ld.counsel for the appellant has filed the deficit court fee, but the same is short by Rs.3000/­. Be filed  within four weeks. ……….3

ITEM NO.55                    ­­3­ Diary No(s). 17617/2017 Mr.Punit Tyagi, Advocate has filed the vakalatnama for the sole respondent, but the same is found to be defective. Cure it within four weeks. List the incomplete matters again on 16.08.2018.                                              RAJESH KUMAR GOEL                                                      Registrar SB

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3159 OF 2004 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. Nos.3455/2004, 7272/2005, 2982-2985/2005, 2986/2005, 7143/2005, 2261/2006, 2246-2247/2008, 2934-2935/2008, 3528/2008, 4820/2008, 6695/2008, 2534/2009, 253/2010, 8541/2009, 445/2010, 1382/2010, 2003-2004/2010, 2430/2010, 2363/2010, 7174-7175/2010, 4696/2011, 6984/2011, 2705/2012 J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J . 1. First, the facts: The respondent – Assessees are manufacturers of dissolved and compressed industrial gases, liquid chlorine and other allied products. Cotton yarn and Post Mix Concentrate manufactured by two other individual assessees are also in issue. These articles are supplied to the customers in tonners, cylinders, carboys, paper cones and HDPE bags, BIBs, pipeline and canisters, which may be more conveniently referred to

2 as “containers”. In some cases the containers are provided by the Assessees to the customers on rent whereas in others the customers bring their own containers. For making available or for filling up the containers provided by the customers the Assessees charge the customers certain amounts under different heads viz. packing charges, wear and tear charges, facility charges, service charges, delivery and collection charges, rental charges, repair and testing charges. The Assessees treat the said amounts as their income from ancillary or allied ventures. 2. The issue arising is whether the aforesaid charges realised by the Assessees are liable to be taken into account for determination of value for the purpose of levy of duty in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as amended with effect from 1 st July, 2000. 3. Perceiving a conflict between the two decisions of this court in Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and Ors. 1 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. Acer India Ltd . 2 , a two judge Bench of this Court by order dated 30 th July, 2009 3 referred the following questions for an answer by a larger bench: 1

(1984) 1 SCC 467 2

(2004) 8 SCC 173 3

(2009) 14 SCC 596

3 “ 1 . Whether Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as substituted with effect from 1-7-2000) and the definition of “transaction value” in clause ( d ) of sub- section (3) of Section 4 are subject to Section 3 of the Act? 2 . Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, despite being interlinked, operate in different fields and what is their real scope and ambit? 3 . Whether the concept of “transaction value” makes any material departure from the deemed normal price concept of the erstwhile Section 4(1)( a ) of the Act?” 4. As the decisions in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) and Acer India Ltd . (supra) were rendered by Benches of Three Hon’ble Judges of this Court, the above questions were referred by order dated 30 th March, 2016 4 to an even larger Bench. This is how we are in seisin of the matter. 5. What is excise duty and what is the relationship between the nature of the duty and the measure of the levy are the two precise questions that would arise for determination in the present reference. 6. On first principles, there can be no dispute. Excise is a levy on manufacture and upon the manufacturer who is entitled under law to pass on the burden to the first purchaser of the manufactured goods. The levy of excise flows from a constitutional authorisation under Entry 84 of List I 4

(2016) 6 SCC 391

4 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The stage of collection of the levy and the measure thereof is, however, a statutory function. So long the statutory exercise in this regard is a competent exercise of legislative power, the legislative wisdom both with regard to the stage of collection and the measure of the levy must be allowed to prevail. The measure of the levy must not be confused with the nature thereof though there must be some nexus between the two. But the measure cannot be controlled by the rigors of the nature. These are some of the settled principles of laws emanating from a long line of decisions of this Court which we will take note of shortly. Do these principles that have withstood the test of time require a rethink is the question that poses for an answer in the present reference. 7. At this stage, it may be necessary to specifically take note of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 as originally enacted and as amended from time to time. Section 3 Section 3 of the Act in force prior to amendment by Finance Act 2000 (Act 10 of 2000) Relevant portion of Section 3 as substituted/amended (with effect from 12 th May, 2000) by Section 92 of the Finance Act, 2000 (No.10 of 2000) 3. Duties specified in the First 3. Duties specified in [the First

5 Schedule to be levied. – (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed,- (a) a duty of excise on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in India as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (b)………… Schedule and the Second Schedule] to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985] to be levied.- There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed,- (a) a duty of excise to be called the Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in India as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986); (b)…………. Section 4 Section 4 as originally enacted (in the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944), Section 4 as amended by Amendment Act No.22 of 1973 Section 4 as amended by Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 1.7.2000 Determination of value for the purposes of duty – Where under this Act any article is chargeable with duty at a rate dependent on the value of the article, such value shall be deemed to be the wholesale cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold for delivery Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise.- (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value, such value shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, be deemed to be- (a) the normal price Valuation of excisable goods for purposes of charging of duty of excise. - (1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to their value, then, on each removal of the goods, such value shall - (a) in a case

6 at the place of manufacture and at the time of its removal therefrom, without any abatement of deduction whatever except trade discount and the amount of duty then payable. thereof, that is to say, the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale: Provided that- (i) where, in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each such price shall, subject to the existence of the other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to each such class of buyers; (ii) where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a where the goods are sold by the assessee, for delivery at the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any excisable goods for which a tariff value has been fixed under sub-section (2) of section 3. (3) For the purpose of this

7 price fixed under any law for the time being in force or at a price, being the maximum, fixed under any such law, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of this proviso, the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be the normal price thereof; (iii) where the assessee so arranges that the goods are generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by the assessee to or through such related person shall be deemed to be the price at which they are ordinarily sold by the related person in the course of wholesale trade at the time of removal, to dealers (not being related persons) or where such goods are not sold to such dealers, to dealers (being related persons) who sell such section,- (a) "assessee" means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent; (b) persons shall be deemed to be "related" if - (i) they are inter- connected undertakings; (ii) they are relatives; (iii) amongst them the buyer is a relative and distributor of the assessee, or a sub- distributor of such distributor; or (iv) they are so associated that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other. Explanation. - In this clause - (i)“inter-connected

8 goods in retail; (b) where the normal price of such goods is not ascertainable for the reason that such goods are not sold or for any other reason, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Where, in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery shall be excluded from such price. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any excisable goods for which a tariff value has been fixed under sub- section (2) of section 3. (4) For the purposes of this section,- undertakings” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (64 of 1969); and (ii)“relative” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (41) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (c) “place of removal” means – (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty, from where such goods are removed;

9 (a) " assessee" means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent; (b) " place of removal" means- (i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; or (ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty, from where such goods are removed; (c) "related person" means a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly, in the business of each other and includes a holding company, a subsidiary company, a relative and a distributor of the assessee, and any sub- distributor of such distributor. Explanation.- In this clause" holding company"," subsidiary company and" relative" have the same (d) “transaction value” means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale or at any other time, including, but not limited to, any amount charged for, or to make provision for, advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty, commission or any other matter; but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if

10 meanings as in the Companies Act, 1956 ; (1 of 1956 ) (d) "value", in relation to any excisable goods,- (i) where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition, includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. Explanation.- In this sub- clause," packing" means the wrapper, container, bobbin, pirn, spool, reel or warp beam or any other thing in which or on which the excisable goods are wrapped, contained or wound; (ii) does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods and, subject to such rules as may be made, the trade discount (such discount not being refundable on any account whatsoever) allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods.

11 wholesale trade at the time of removal in respect of such goods sold or contracted for sale. (e) “wholesale trade” means sales to dealers, industrial consumers, Government, local authorities and other buyers, who or which purchase their requirements/otherwise than in retail. 8. It may be appropriate, at this stage, to make a brief narration of the developments in the particular branch of fiscal jurisprudence which is in issue in the present cases. The Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938, (Central Provinces and Berar Act No.XIV of 1938) authorised the levy and collection from every retail dealer, as defined by the Act, a tax on the retail sales of motor spirits and lubricants at the rate of five per cent on the value of such sales. The levy was challenged and what arose for decision before the Federal Court on a reference, made by the Governor General under Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (often referred to as “the Constitution Act”) is the question whether the said levy was a duty of excise under Entry 45 of List-I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution

12 Act or a tax on sale of goods under Entry 48 of List II of the said Schedule. While the eventual answer in the reference holding the levy to be a tax on sale of goods and therefore within the competence of the Provincial Legislature is of no consequence to the present issue, what may require a specific notice is that Entry 45 which empowered the Federal Legislature to make laws with respect to “duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India; except…” corresponds to Entry 84 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 9 . Some extracts from the opinion rendered by Chief Justice Gwyer(all the Judges on the Bench gave their own opinions while agreeing to the eventual conclusion) would throw light on the nature of the levy of excise and is therefore being recollected below:- “The federal legislative power extends to making laws with respect to duties of excise on goods manufactured or produced in India. "Excise" is stated in the Oxford Dictionary to have been originally accise", a word derived through the Dutch from the late Latin accensare, to tax; the modern form, which ousted accise" at an early date, being apparently due to a mistaken derivation from the Latin excidere, to cut out. It was at first a general word for a toll or tax, but since the 17th century it has acquired in the United Kingdom a particular, though not always precise, signification. The primary meaning of “excise duty” or “duty of excise” has come to be that of a tax on certain articles of luxury (such as spirits, beer or

13 tobacco) produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, and it is used in contradistinction to customs duties on articles imported into the country from elsewhere . At a later date the licence fees payable by persons who produced or sold excisable articles also became known as duties of excise; and the expression was still later extended to licence fees imposed for revenue, administrative, or regulative purposes on persons engaged in a number of other trades or callings. Even the duty payable on payments for admission to places of entertainment in the United Kingdom is called a duty of excise; and, generally speaking, the expression is used to cover all duties and taxes which, together with customs duties, are collected and administered by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. But its primary and fundamental meaning in English is still that of a tax on articles produced or manufactured in the taxing country and intended for home consumption. I am satisfied that that is also its primary and fundamental meaning in India; and no one has suggested that it has any other meaning in Entry (45). xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx …There can be no reason in theory why an excise duty should not be imposed even on the retail sale of an article, if the taxing Act so provides. Subject always to the legislative competence of the taxing authority, a duty on home produced goods will obviously be imposed at the stage which the authority find to be the most convenient and the most lucrative, wherever it may be; but that is a matter of the machinery of collection, and does not affect the essential nature of the tax. The ultimate incidence of an excise duty, a typical indirect tax, must always be on the consumer, who pays as he consumes or expends; and it continues to be an excise duty, that is, a duty on home-produced or home-manufactured goods, no matter at what stage it is collected. The definition of excise duties is

14 therefore of little assistance in determining the extent of the legislative power to impose them; for the duty imposed by a restricted legislative power does not differ in essence from the duty imposed by an extended one. It was argued on behalf of the Provincial Government that an excise duty was a tax on production or manufacture only and that it could not therefore be levied at any later stage. Whether or not there be any difference between a tax on production and a tax on the thing produced, this contention, no less than that of the Government of India, confuses the nature of the duty with the extent of the legislative power to impose it. Nor, for the reasons already given, is it possible to agree that in no circumstances could an excise duty be levied at a stage subsequent to production or manufacture .” (Underlining and bold is ours) 10. The issue was considered further in The Province of Madras vs. Messrs. Boddu Paidanna & Sons 5 . The following observation would be relevant. “In 1939 F.C.R. 18 the opinions expressed were advisory opinions only, but we do not think that we ought to regard them as any less binding upon us on that account. We accept, therefore, the general division between the Central and Provincial spheres of taxation which commended itself to the majority of the Court in that case…………….. They recognized that the expression 'duty of excise' is wide enough to include a tax on sales ; but where power is expressly given to another authority to levy a tax on sales, it is clear that “duty of excise” 5

A.I.R. (29) 1942 Federal Court 33 (from Madras)

15 must be given a more restricted meaning than it might otherwise bear. On the other hand the fact that “duty of excise” is itself an expression of very general import is no reason at all for refusing to give to the expression “tax on sales” the meaning which it would ordinarily and naturally convey. In these circumstances the question at issue in the present appeal appears to us to lie within a very small compass. The duties of excise which the Constitution Act assigns exclusively to the Central Legislature are,- according to the 1939 F.C.R 18, duties levied upon the manufacturer or producer in respect of the manufacture or production of the commodity taxed. The tax on the sale of goods, which the Act assigns exclusively to the Provincial Legislatures, is a tax levied on the occasion of the sale of the goods. Plainly a tax levied on the first sale must in the nature of things be a tax on the sale by the manufacturer or producer ; but it is levied upon him qua seller and not qua manufacturer or producer. ……………If the taxpayer who pays a sales tax is also a manufacturer or producer of commodities subject to a central duty of excise, there may no doubt be an overlapping in one sense ; but there is no overlapping in law. The two taxes which he is called on to pay are economically two separate and distinct imposts. There is in theory nothing to prevent the Central Legislature from imposing a duty of excise on a commodity as soon as it comes into existence, no matter what happens to it afterwards, whether it be sold, consumed, destroyed, or given away. A taxing authority will not ordinarily impose such a duty, because it is much more convenient administratively to collect the duty (as in the case of most of the Excise Acts) when the commodity leaves the

16 factory for the first time, and also because the duty is intended to be an indirect duty which the manufacturer or producer is to pass on to the ultimate consumer, which he could not do if the commodity had, for example, been destroyed in the factory itself. It is the fact of manufacture which attracts the duty, even though it may be collected later ; and we may draw attention to the Sugar Excise Act in which it is specially provided that the duty is payable not only in respect of sugar which is issued from the factory but also in respect of sugar which is consumed within the factory. In the case of a sales tax, the liability to tax arises on the occasion of a sale, and a sale has no necessary connexion with manufacture or production. The manufacturer or producer cannot of course sell his commodity unless he has first manufactured or produced it; but he is liable, if at all, to a sales tax because he sells and not because he manufactures or produces; and he would be free from liability if he chose to give away everything which came from his factory. ” 11 . The early views on the nature of excise duty as a levy and the stage of collection thereof would make it clear that though the impost is on the manufacture of an article the point of collection of the same need not necessarily coincide with the time of manufacture. The stage of collection can and usually is a matter of administrative convenience and such stage, normally, is the stage of clearance of article when it, for the first time, enters the trade for sale. The above position was affirmed by the Privy

17 Council in Governor-General in Council v. Province of Madras 6 wherein it was, inter alia , held as follows: “The term " duty of excise " is a somewhat flexible one: it may, no doubt, cover a tax on first and, perhaps, on other sales: it may in a proper context have an even wider meaning. An exhaustive discussion of this subject, from which their Lordships have obtained valuable assistance, is to be found in the judgment of the Federal Court in 1939 F. C. R. 18. Consistently with this decision, their Lordships are of opinion that a duty of excise is primarily a duty levied upon a manufacturer or producer in respect of the commodity manufactured or produced. It is a tax upon goods not upon sales or the proceeds of sale of goods. Here again, their Lordships find themselves in complete accord with the reasoning and conclusions of the Federal Court in the Boddu Paidanna case. The two taxes, the one levied upon a manufacturer in respect of his goods, the other upon a vendor in respect of his sales, may, as is there pointed out, in one sense overlap. But in law there is no overlapping. The taxes are separate and distinct imposts. If in fact they overlap, that may be because the taxing authority, imposing a duty of excise, finds it convenient to impose that duty at the moment when the exciseable article leaves the factory or workshop for the first time on the occasion of its sale. But that method of collecting the tax is an accident of administration; it is not of the essence of the duty of excise, which is attracted by the manufacture itself.” 12. The above views received the consideration of this Court in R.C. Jall Parsi v. Union of India and anr 7 . wherein this Court held that while excise duty is essentially a duty on manufacture which is passed on to the 6

[A.I.R. (32) 1945 Privy Council 98] 7

AIR 1962 SC 1281

18 consumer, the stage of collection, subject to legislative competence of the taxing authority, could be at any stage convenient so long the character of the levy i.e. duty on manufacture is not altogether lost. The further view expressed was to the effect that “the method of collection does not affect the essence of the duty, but only relates to the machinery of collection for administrative convenience.” 13. It will hardly be necessary to reiterate the long lines of pronouncements that have consistently followed the above view, except to make a little detailed reference to Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra), not only because the true ratio of the decision in the said case has to be understood for the purpose of this reference so as to deal with the perceived conflict with Acer India Ltd. (supra) but also on account of the fact that the subject in issue had received a full and detailed consideration of this Court. 14. In Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) the issue, shortly put, was whether determination of assessable value for the levy of excise duty can be only on the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit. It was contended before this Court, by relying on the decision of this Court in A.K. Roy and Another vs. Voltas Limited 8 , that having regard to the 8

(1973) 3 SCC 503

19 character of the levy the measure must be restricted thereto. The contention was rejected by referring to a long line of precedents including those referred to herein above to hold that “ the levy of a tax is defined by its nature, while the measure of the tax may be assessed by its own standard. It is true that the standard adopted as the measure of the levy may indicate the nature of the tax but it does not necessarily determine it .”. The further view expressed in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) is that merely because excise is a levy on manufactured goods the value of the excisable article for the purpose of levy cannot be limited to only the manufacturing cost plus manufacturing profit. This Court went on to hold that “ a broader based standard of reference may be adopted for the purpose of determining the measure of the levy. Any standard which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy .” 15. A reading of Section 4 of the Act, as originally enacted; as amended by 1973 Amendment; and as further amended by 2000 Amendment would clearly show that the value of the article for the purposes of levy of ad valorem duty was with reference to the price i.e. ‘normal price’ prior to the 2000 Amendment and thereafter with reference to the ‘transaction value’ which has been defined (already extracted) to mean “the price actually

20 paid or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price……” 16. The measure for the purpose of the levy is, therefore, essentially the price charged in respect of a transaction which must necessarily be at arm’s length. Inclusions and additions that enrich the value of the Article till its clearance are permissible additions to the price that can be taken into account to determine ‘value’ under the old Section 4 (prior to 2000) as well as the ‘transaction value’ under the amended section effective from 1.7.2000. While such additions have been judicially held to be permissible under the old Act in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) the very same heads have been statutorily engrafted by the amendment made in 2000. 17. The price charged for a manufactured article at the stage when the article enters into the stream of trade in order to determine the value/transaction value for computation of the quantum of excise duty payable does not come into conflict with the essential character or nature of the levy. The measure is the value and value is related to price. The price charged at the stage of clearance, in addition to manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, can include certain value additions and inclusions which enrich the value of the product to make it suitable for

21 sale or to facilitate such sale. At this stage, impost has nothing to do with the sale. The impost is on manufacture. But it is the value upto the stage of the first sale that is taken as the measure. Doing so does not introduce any inconsistency between the nature and character of the levy and the measure adopted. 18. The above aspect had been considered in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) on a specific contention advanced on behalf of the Assessees that the deductions under the following heads should be made from the sale price in the following terms: “48. We now proceed to the question whether any post-manufacturing expenses are deductible from the price when determining the “value” of the excisable article. The old Section 4 provided by the Explanation thereto that in determining the price of any article under that section no abatement or deduction would be allowed except in respect of trade discount and the amount of duty payable at the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or other premises aforesaid. The new Section 4 provides by sub-section (2) that where the price of excisable goods for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal, the cost of transportation from the place of removal to the place of delivery has to be excluded from such price. The new Section 4 also contains sub-section (4)( d )( ii ) which declares that the expression “value” in relation to any excisable goods, does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods and, subject to such rules as may be made,

22 the trade discount (such discount not being refundable on any account whatsoever) allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade at the time of removal in respect of such goods sold or contracted for sale. Now these are clear provisions expressly providing for deduction, from the price, of certain items of expenditure. But learned counsel for the assessees contend that besides the heads so specified a proper construction of the section does not prohibit the deduction of other categories of post-manufacturing expenses. It is also urged that although the new Section 4(4)( d )( i ) declares that in computing the “value” of an excisable article, the cost of packing shall be included, the provision should be construed as confined to primary packing and as not extending to secondary packing. The heads under which the claim to deduction is made are detailed below: ( 1 ) Storage charges. ( 2 ) Freight or other transport charges, whether specific or equalised. ( 3 ) Outward handling charges, whether specific or equalised. ( 4 ) Interest on inventories (stocks carried by the manufacturer after clearance). ( 5 ) Charges for other services after delivery to the buyer. ( 6 ) Insurance after the goods have left the factory gate. ( 7 ) Packing charges . ( 8 ) Marketing and Selling Organisation expenses, including advertisement and publicity expenses. (Underlining is ours) 19 . The above issue was answered by saying - “50 . We shall now examine the claim. It is apparent that for the purpose of determining the “value”, broadly speaking both the old Section 4 ( a ) and the new Section 4(1)( a ) speak of the price for sale in the course of wholesale trade of an article

23 for delivery at the time and place of removal, namely, the factory gate. Where the price contemplated under the old Section 4 ( a ) or under the new Section 4(1)( a ) is not ascertainable, the price is determined under the old Section 4( b ) or the new Section 4(1)( b ). Now, the price of an article is related to its value (using this term in a general sense), and into that value have poured several components, including those which have enriched its value and given to the article its marketability in the trade. Therefore, the expenses incurred on account of the several factors which have contributed to its value upto the date of sale, which apparently would be the date of delivery, are liable to be included. Consequently, where the sale is effected at the factory gate, expenses incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery on account of storage charges, outward handling charges, interest on inventories (stocks carried by the manufacturer after clearance), charges for other services after delivery to the buyer, namely after- sales service and marketing and selling organisation expenses including advertisement expenses cannot be deducted. It will be noted that advertisement expenses, marketing and selling organisation expenses and after-sales service promote the marketability of the article and enter into its value in the trade. Where the sale in the course of wholesale trade is effected by the assessee through its sales organisation at a place or places outside the factory gate, the expenses incurred by the assessee upto the date of delivery under the aforesaid heads cannot, on the same grounds, be deducted. But the assessee will be entitled to a deduction on account of the cost of transportation of the excisable article from the factory gate to the place or places where it is sold. The cost of transportation will include the cost of insurance on the freight for transportation of the goods from the factory gate to the place or places of delivery.” (Underlining is ours)

24 20. We find no room whatsoever for any disagreement with the above view taken by this court in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). It is a view consistent with what was held by the Federal Court and the Privy Council in Central Provinces and Berar (supra), Boddu Paidanna (supra) and Province of Madras (supra) and the decisions that followed thereafter including the decision in Voltas Limited (supra) and Atic Industries Limited vs. H.H. Dewa, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and ors 9 the true purport of which was explained in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). Both the above opinions were clarified to mean that neither of them lay down any proposition to the effect that the excise duty can be levied only on the manufacturing cost plus the manufacturing profit only. 21. At this stage, the amendment to Section 3 by substitution of the words “a duty of excise on all excisable goods” by the words “a duty of excise to be called the Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) on all excisable goods” is conspicuous. The amendment of Section 3 to the Act not only incorporates the essentials of a changed concept of charging of tax on additions to the value of goods and services at each stage of production but also engrafts in the statute what was judicially held to be permissible additions to the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit 9

(1975) 1 SCC 499

25 in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). This fundamental change by introduction of the concept underlying value-added taxation in the provisions of Section 3 really find reflection in the definition of ‘transaction value’ as defined by Section 4(3)(d) of the Act besides incorporating what was explicitly held to be permissible in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). Section 4(3)(d), thus, defines ‘transaction value’ by specifically including all value additions made to the manufactured article prior to its clearance, as permissible additions to be price charged for purpose of the levy. 22. This would bring us to a consideration of the decision of this Court in Acer India Ltd (supra). The details need not detain us. Softwares which were duty free items and could be transacted as softwares came to be combined with the computer hardware which was a dutiable item for purposes of clearance. The Revenue sought to take into account the value of the computer software for the purposes of determination of ‘transaction value’ with regard to the computer. This Court negatived the stand of the Revenue taking the view that when software as a separate item was not dutiable its inclusion in the hard-disk of the computer cannot alter the duty liability of the software so as to permit the addition of the price/value of the software for the purpose of levy of duty. It is in the

26 above context that the decision of this Court in Acer India Ltd . (supra) has to be understood. The observations made in paragraph 84 thereof to the effect that ‘transaction value’ defined in Section 4(3)(d) of the Act would be subject to the charging provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act will have viewed in the context of a situation where an addition of the value of a non-dutiable item was sought to be made to the value of a dutiable item for the purpose of determination of the transaction value of the composite item. This is the limited context in which the subservience of Section 4(3)(d) to Section 3 of the Act was expressed and has to be understood. If so understood, we do not see how the views expressed in paragraph 84 of Acer India Ltd . (supra) can be read to be in conflict with the decision of Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra). 23. Accordingly, we answer the reference by holding that the measure of the levy contemplated in Section 4 of the Act will not be controlled by the nature of the levy. So long a reasonable nexus is discernible between the measure and the nature of the levy both Section 3 and 4 would operate in their respective fields as indicated above. The view expressed in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) is the correct exposition of the law in this regard. Further, we hold that “transaction value” as defined in Section 4(3)(d) brought into force by the Amendment Act, 2000, statutorily

27 engrafts the additions to the ‘normal price’ under the old Section 4 as held to be permissible in Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (supra) besides giving effect to the changed description of the levy of excise introduced in Section 3 of the Act by the Amendment of 2000. Infact, we are of the view that there is no discernible difference in the statutory concept of ‘transaction value’ and the judicially evolved meaning of ‘normal price’. 24. The above answers would comprehend the issues specifically arising in all the three questions that have been referred for our opinion. …........................J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ........................J. (N.V. RAMANA) ........................J. (R. BANUMATHI) ........................................................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) ….............................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) NEW DELHI MAY 11, 2018.

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.3 SECTION XVII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 10251/2018 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR II Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S.C. S. DOSHI (HUF) Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.49664/2018-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.49660/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL) Date : 16-04-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banjerjee, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv Ms. Seem Bagwani, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed. Issue notice. Tag with Civil Appeal No.766 of 2018. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (ASHA SONI) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31062/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-03-2017 in CEA No. 33/2016 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD Respondent(s) (IA No.99913/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.99911/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP) Date : 23-03-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ASG Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 10469/2017. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.3 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. KAPIL MEHTA Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST Respondent(s) (ONLY CIVIL APPEAL NO.2469 and 2470 OF 2015 TO BE LISTED BEFORE LD. REGISTRAR COURT) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (XIV) Date : 30-01-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr M Khairati, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Mr. Kishore Kunal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Court fee has been filed in both matters. Registry to process the matters for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. KAPIL MEHTA Registrar 30.01.2018 hj

ITEM NO.9 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. KAPIL MEHTA Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST Respondent(s) (ONLY CIVIL APPEAL NO.2469, 2470 AND 5871 OF 2015 TO BE LISTED) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (XIV) Date : 06-12-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M.P. Devanath, AOR Mr. M. Khairati,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Mr. Vipin Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Kishore Kunal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 5871/2015 Appellant has already filed the affidavit of valuation and paid the deficit court fee. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. C.A. Nos. 2469 & 2470/2015 Last and final opportunity is granted to the Ld. Counsel for the appellant for filing the affidavit of valuation and for depositing deficit court fee within four weeks. List again on 30 th of January, 2018. KAPIL MEHTA Registrar 06.12.2017 vkt

ITEM NO.4 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. ERNST Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (XIV) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (XIV) Date : 02-11-2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. M. Khairati,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Mr. Tushal Gupta,Adv. Mr. Kishore Kunal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 1907/2015 is a complete matter. C.A. Nos. 2469, 2470 and 5871/2015 Ld. Counsel for the appellants have not filed the affidavit of valuation and ad valorem court fee. Four weeks' time is granted for filing the same. List again on 6 th of December, 2017. RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY Registrar

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV 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). OF 2017 Diary No(s). 23257/2017 CCE AND ST, JAIPUR 1 Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S SHREE MOHAN INDUSTRIES, JAIPUR,RAJASTHAN Respondent(s) (IA No.106692/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No.106694/2017-STAY APPLICATION and IA No.106693/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 30-10-2017 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv. Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohiya,Adv. Mr. Karan Nagrath, Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Tag with C.A. Nos.12751-12752/2017. (NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER (ASHA SONI) BRANCH OFFICER

ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.10 SECTION S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Diary No. 18784/2017 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GURGAON-II Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.99913/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.99911/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING) Date : 23-10-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in refiling the Special Leave Petition is condoned. (POOJA SEHGAL) (SHARDA KAPOOR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASST.REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.10 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION XIV 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 MR. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL IA 1/2015,4/2015, in Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL. ON IA 1/2015 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 4/2015) Date : 19-09-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Bansal,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R All the three respondents are duly represented. Appellant has filed the affidavit of valuation with ad valorem court fee. Parties have not filed the Statements of Case and the stipulated time has expired. Registry to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Registrar

ITEM NO.52 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV 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). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ON IA 1/2015 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 4/2015 Date : 28-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta,ASG Mr. K. Radhakrishnan,Sr.Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta,Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Mr. Siddharth Jain,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing appeals is condoned. Appeals admitted. (OM PARKASH SHARMA) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR CUM PS COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV 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). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL ON IA 1/2015 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 4/2015) Date : 05-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As a last opportunity, two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS Court Master

ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIB 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). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 28/04/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv,. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter after two weeks. (SWETA DHYANI) (RAJINDER KAUR ) SR.P.A COURT MASTER

Listing Date : 28.04.2017 Court : 3 Item : 48 SECTION­IIIB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5139­5141 OF 2015  WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1­3 [Applications for condonation of delay in filing the petition of appeal] AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1­3 (Application for stay) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore ...Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s. Inter Metal Trade Ltd. And Others  ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above­mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 3 rd  March, 2017, when the Court was pleased to pass the following orders: “Rejoinder affidavit be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.” It is submitted that no  Rejoinder Affidavit  has been filed by counsel for the appellant so far. The matters alongwith applications above­mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.  Dated this the 25 th  day of April, 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.  2. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Advocate B­9, Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi­110001. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR  dm

(ITEM NO.47 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIB 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). 5139-5141/2015COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. andstay)Date : 28/04/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEERFor Appellant(s) Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv,. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. Mr. Preetesh Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R List the matter after two weeks. (SWETA DHYANI) (RAJINDER KAUR ) SR.P.A COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIB 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). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal and stay) Date : 03/03/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Kabir Hathi, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) M r. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Rejoinder affidavit be filed within four weeks. List thereafter. (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS Court Master

Listing Date : 03.03.2017 Court : 3 Item : 39 SECTION­IIIB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5139­5141 OF 2015  WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1­3 [Applications for condonation of delay in filing the petition of appeal] Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore ...Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s. Inter Metal Trade Ltd. And Others  ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matters above­mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court on 8 th  July 2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following orders: “Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as well as on the appeals.” Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 16 th  July 2015 to all the three Respondents through Registered A.D. Post. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Advocate has on 2 nd  and 4 th  September 2015 filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of all the three Respondents. It is submitted that Office Report with regard to non­filing of Counter Affidavit and Deficit Court Fee was lastly listed before the Ld. Registrar Court on 5 th  April 2016, when the following orders were passed:  “Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not filed counter affidavit despite last opportunity granted. Further opportunity is hereby declined. Last opportunity of three weeks is granted for filing deficit court fee. Registry thereafter to process the matter for being listed before the Hon'ble Court.” It is submitted that Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 has on 18 th April 2016 filed Counter Affidavit (in separate volume). Paper Books of Counter Affidavit have been placed with appeal paper books.   ...2/­

­2­ It is further submitted that Counsel for the Appellant has not filed Deficit Court fee so far. The matters alongwith applications above­mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report.  Dated this the 28 th  day of February 2017. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.  2. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Advocate B­9, Sagar Apartments, 6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi­110001. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR  dm

>ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIB 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). 5139-5141/2015COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal and stay)Date : 03/03/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEERFor Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASGMr. Kabir Hathi, Adv.Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) M r. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RRejoinder affidavit be filed within four weeks.List thereafter.(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RAJINDER KAUR) AR-cum-PS Court Master

ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIB 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. 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (office report for directions) Date : 15/11/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR [IN CHAMBERS] For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Khairati, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Kishore Kunal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing affidavit of valuation is condoned. (RASHMI DHYANI ) (SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) SR.P.A. AR-CUM-PS

SECTION­III B            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  1907 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION No.­ 4  (APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING AFFIDAVIT OF   VALUATION) Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi     .......Appellant        ­Versus­       M/S Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd.                                                ......Respondent OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTION The office report for direction dated 21st July 2016 was listed before the Hon'ble   Judge in Chamber on 26 th  August, 2016 when His Lordship was pleased to pass the   following order : “ Four weeks' further time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant   to pay deficit court fee of Rs. 32,000/­ and also to file affidavit of valuation,   failing which the civil appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference   to the court.”   It is submitted for information of the Hon'ble court that counsel for the appellant   has on 14­09­2016 filed the deficit court fee of Rs. 32,000/­ which is within time, but he   has also filed affidavit of valuation on 30­09­2016 which is barred by time by six days and   also he has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing affidavit of valuation   which is registered as I.A No. 4 of 2016 and the same is included in the paper book. The Office Report along with application for condonation of delay in filing affidavit   of valuation is listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber for Directions. Dated this the  25 th  October,  2016.       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to :  1. Mr. V.K. Verma, Advocate Central Agency Section  2. Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocate, 306, New Lawyers Chamber ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\222ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCivil Appeal No. 1907/2015COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(office report for directions)Date : 15/11/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR [IN CHAMBERS]For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Khairati, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Kishore Kunal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RDelay in filing affidavit of valuation is condoned. (RASHMI DHYANI ) (SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) SR.P.A. AR-CUM-PS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1907 OF 2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) O R D E R Four weeks' further time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to pay deficit court fee of Rs.32,000/- and also to file affidavit of valuation, failing which the civil appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. .....…..............J. (N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 26, 2016.

ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.11 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). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (Office report for directions) Date : 26/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA [IN CHAMBERS] For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Khairati,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Jain,Adv. Mr. T. Gupta,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeks' further time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to pay deficit court fee of Rs.32,000/- and also to file affidavit of valuation, failing which the civil appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. (SAPNA BISHT) (S.S.R. KRISHNA) SR. P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)

SECTION­III IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1907 OF 2015  Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi ...Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd.    ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT FOR DIRECTIONS The Office Report with regard to non­filing of affidavit of valuation and deficit court fee was listed before the Ld. Registrar Court on 11 th  July 2016, when the following orders were passed:  “Affidavit of valuation and deficit court fee have not been filed by the appellant. The matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions.  In the meantime, affidavit of valuation and deficit court fee be got rectified by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.” It is submitted that Counsel for the Appellant has on 18 th  July 2016 filed deficit court fee of Rs.3,50,000/­ (Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), but more deficit court fee of Rs.32000/­ has not been filed by the Counsel for the Appellant.  The Counsel for the Appellant has also not filed affidavit of valuation as directed.  The Office Report for Directions is listed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber for orders. Dated this the 21 st  day of July 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section. 2. Mr. R. Chandrachud, Advocate 231, New Lawyers Chambers.  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR  c5

\206IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO.1907 OF 2015COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)O R D E R Four weeks' further time is granted to the learned counselfor the appellant to pay deficit court fee of Rs.32,000/- andalso to file affidavit of valuation, failing which the civilappeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to theCourt......⬠¦..............J. (N.V. RAMANA)NEW DELHI;AUGUST 26, 2016.ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.11 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). 1907/2015COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(Office report for directions)Date : 26/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA [IN CHAMBERS]For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Khairati,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Jain,Adv. Mr. T. Gupta,Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RFour weeks' further time is granted to the learnedcounsel for the appellant to pay deficit court fee ofRs.32,000/- and also to file affidavit of valuation,failing which the civil appeal shall stand dismissedwithout further reference to the Court. (SAPNA BISHT) (S.S.R. KRISHNA) SR. P.A. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(Signed order is placed on the file)

ITEM NO.58 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGH Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (With (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and Office Report) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (With (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (With (With (With appln.(s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Office Report) Date : 11/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Nigar Khan, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Rachna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.

Item No.58 -2- UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No. 5871/2015 The matter falls under the complete category. C.A. No. 1907/2015 Affidavit of valuation and deficit court fee have not been filed by the appellant. The matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. In the meantime, affidavit of valuation and deficit court fee be got rectified by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. C.A. No. 2469/2015 The Ld. Counsel for the sole respondent has not filed the vakalatnama, though counter affidavit has been filed. C.A. No. 2470/2015 The said matter be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. (CHIRAG BHANU SINGH) Registrar

SECTION­III IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1907, 2469, 2470 & 5871 OF 2015 Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Etc. ...Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. Etc.   ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The Office Report was listed before the Ld. Registrar Court on 2 nd  May 2016, when the following order was passed:­ “ C.A. No.1907,5871 of 2015 Matters falls under complete category. C.A. No.2470/2015 Despite last opportunity granted, fresh steps in respect of the sole respondent have not not been taken.  Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. C.A. No.2469/2015 Sole respondent has filed counter affidavit but vakalatnama has not been filed. Ld. Counsel seeks time. Be filed within two weeks time as last opportunity. List again on 11.7.2016.” C.A. No.1907 of 2015 It is submitted that Counsel for the Appellant has neither filed affidavit of valuation as per Para 5 of Petition of Appeal (Page 51) nor filed deficit court as per valuation given in Listing Proforma (Page A2). C.A. No. 2470 of 2015 It is submitted that the matter is being processed for listing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions.  C.A. No. 2469 of 2015 It is submitted that the Counsel for the Sole Respondent has not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of the Sole Respondent so far.  ...2/­

­2­ C.A. No.5871 of 2015 It is submitted that the matter is ready for hearing before the Hon'ble Court.  The Office Report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court. Dated this the 8 th  day of July 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: 1. *Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section. *You are requested to file Vakalatnama/ Appearance on behalf of  Sole Respondent in C.A. Nos.2469 & 2470 of 2015. 2. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate 5, Jangpura Extension, Link Road, New Delhi­110014. 3. Mr. R. Chandrachud, Advocate 231, New Lawyers Chambers.  4. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocate  01, C.K. Daphtary Block Chambers.  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR  c5

ºITEM NO.58 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. CHIRAG BHANU SINGHCivil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)(with office report)WITHC.A. No. 2469/2015(With (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and Office Report) C.A. No. 2470/2015(With (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) C.A. No. 5871/2015(With (With (With appln.(s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Office Report) Date : 11/07/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Nigar Khan, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms. Rachna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.Item No.58 -2- UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RC.A. No. 5871/2015The matter falls under the complete category.C.A. No. 1907/2015Affidavit of valuation and deficit court fee have not beenfiled by the appellant.The matter be processed for listing before the Hon'bleJudge in Chambers for further directions.In the meantime, affidavit of valuation and deficit courtfee be got rectified by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.C.A. No. 2469/2015The Ld. Counsel for the sole respondent has not filed thevakalatnama, though counter affidavit has been filed.C.A. No. 2470/2015The said matter be processed for listing before theHon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. (CHIRAG BHANU SINGH) Registrar

ITEM NO.49 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (With (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and Office Report) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (With (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (With (With (With appln.(s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Office Report) Date : 02/05/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr Mohit Kr Gupta, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms Rachana Yadav, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv.

-2- Item No.49 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No.1907,5871 of 2015 Matters falls under complete category. C.A. No.2470/2015 Despite last opportunity granted, fresh steps in respect of the sole respondent have not not been taken. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for further directions. C.A. No.2469/2015 Sole respondent has filed counter affidavit but vakalatnama has not been filed. Ld. Counsel seeks time. Be filed within two weeks time as last opportunity. List again on 11.7.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION­III   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1907, 2470, 5871 AND 2469 OF 2015 Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi etc. ...Appellant(s) ­VERSUS­ M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. Etc.            ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The office report was listed before the Ld. Registrar's Court on 17 th February, 2016 when the Court passed the following order:­ “ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1907/2015. Sole respondents has already filed counter affidavit . Statement of Case has not been filed by either of the  parties. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2470/2015. Two weeks time, as last opportunity is granted for taking  fresh  steps for the sole respondent.  Notice be issued  thereafter.  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5871/2015. Sole respondent has already filed counter affidavit. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2469/2015. Sole respondent has filed counter affidavit but  vakalatnama has not been filed.  Be filed within three  weeks time. List again on 02.05.2016.” CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1907 OF 2015 The said matter is related with complete category. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2470 OF 2015 It is submitted that Counsel for the Appellant has not taken any fresh step for effecting service of the Notice on the sole respondent. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5871 OF 2015 The said matter is related with complete category.

­2­ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2469 OF 2015 It is submitted that though Counter Affidavit has already been filed on behalf of sole respondent by Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate, but he has not filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole respondent so far. The Office Report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders. Dated this the 30 th  day of April, 2016.    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:  1. *Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.  * You are requested to file Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole  respondent of C.A. No. 2469 & 2470/2015. 2. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate  5, Jangpura Extn., Link Road,  New Delhi­ 110014. 3. Mr. R. Chandrachud, Advocate 231, New Lawyers Chambers. 4. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocate 01, C.K. Daphtary Block Chambers. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C­2

& ITEM NO.49 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (With (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and Office Report) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (With (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (With (With (With appln.(s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and Office Report) Date : 02/05/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr Mohit Kr Gupta, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. For Respondent(s)Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2016.05.03 Ms Rachana Yadav, Adv.16:50:22 ISTReason: Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. -2-Item No.49 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. No.1907,5871 of 2015 Matters falls under complete category.

C.A. No.2470/2015 Despite last opportunity granted, fresh steps in respectof the sole respondent have not not been taken. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Judge inChambers for further directions. C.A. No.2469/2015 Sole respondent has filed counter affidavit butvakalatnama has not been filed. Ld. Counsel seeks time. Befiled within two weeks time as last opportunity. List again on 11.7.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.36 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 05/04/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not filed counter affidavit despite last opportunity granted. Further opportunity is hereby declined. Last opportunity of three weeks is granted for filing deficit court fee. Registry thereafter to process the matter for being listed before the Hon'ble Court. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION­III IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  5139­5141 OF  2015     WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 1­3 (Applications for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore .....Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s. Inter Metal Trade Ltd. & Ors.       .....Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The office report dated 21 st  January, 2016 in the matter above­mentioned was listed before the Ld. Registrar Court on 21 st  January, 2016, when the following orders were passed:  “Last opportunity of four weeks is granted to the Ld. Counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit. List again on 5.4.2016. ” It is submitted that Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Counsel for the respondents has not filed Counter Affidavit so far. It is further submitted that Counsel for the Appellant has also not filed deficit Court fee as per valuation given in Listing Proforma (Page A­2). The Office Report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders.    Dated this the 1 st  day of April,  2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:­ 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.  2. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Advocate B­9, Sagar Apartments, Tilak Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c1

Î ITEM NO.36 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 05/04/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have not filed counter affidavit despite last opportunity granted. Further opportunity is hereby declined. Last opportunity of three weeks is granted for filing deficit court fee. Registry thereafter to process the matter for being listed before the Hon'ble Court.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2016.04.0516:50:46 ISTReason: (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.55 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and Office Report) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and appln.(s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and Office Report) Date : 17/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Sanchita, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1907/2015 . Sole respondent has already filed counter affidavit. Statement of Case has not been filed by either of the parties. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2470/2015 . Two weeks time, as last opportunity is granted for taking

fresh steps for the sole respondent. Notice be issued thereafter. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5871/2015 . Sole respondent has already filed counter affidavit. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2469/2015. Sole respondent has filed counter affidavit but vakalatnama has not been filed. Be filed within three weeks time. List again on 02.05.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION­III   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1907, 2470, 5871 AND 2469 OF 2015 Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi etc. ...Appellant(s) ­VERSUS­ M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. Etc. ...Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1907 OF 2015 The matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 9 th  February 2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Delay condoned. Notice."  Accordingly, Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal was issued on 19 th February 2015 to the sole Respondent through Mr. R. Chandrachud, Advocate, who has already on 19 th  December 2014 filed Caveat/ Vakalatnama/ Appearance on behalf of Sole Respondent and he has also on 15 th  January 2016 filed Counter Affidavit on behalf of Sole Respondent.  It is submitted that time to file Statement of Case has expired, neither Counsel for the Appellant nor Counsel for the Respondent has filed Statement of Case.   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2470 OF 2015 The matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27 th  March 2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Notice. Tag with C.A. No. 2469 of 2015 and connected matter."  Accordingly, Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal was issued on 29 th April 2015 to the sole Respondent through  Registered A.D. Post.  Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover containing the said notice has been received back from Sole Respondent so far.

­2­ CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5871 OF 2015 The matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 31 st  July 2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Notice. Tag with C.A. No.1907 of 2015."  Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued on 11 th  August 2015 to the sole Respondent through Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocate, who has already on 18 th December 2014 filed Caveat/ Vakalatnama/ Appearance on behalf of Sole Respondent and he has also on 2 nd  January 2016 filed Counter Affidavit on behalf of Sole Respondent.  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2469 OF 2015 The matter was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 20 th  March 2015 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:­ “Notice. Tag with C.A. D. No. 41287/2014."  Accordingly, Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal was issued on 8 th  April 2015 to the sole Respondent through  Registered A.D. Post.  Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate has on 18 th  August 2015 filed Counter Affidavit on behalf of Sole Respondent, but he has not filed Vakalatnama/ Appearance on behalf of Sole Respondent despite this Registry's Letter dated 21 st  August 2015.  The Office Report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders. Dated this the 15 th  day of October, 2015.    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:  1. *Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.  * You are requested to file Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole respondent of  C.A. No. 2469 & 2470/2015. 2. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate  5, Jangpura Extn., Link Road,  New Delhi­ 110014. 3. Mr. R. Chandrachud, Advocate 231, New Lawyers Chambers. 4. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Advocate 01, C.K. Daphtary Block Chambers.

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C­2

ITEM NO.55 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 1907/2015 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 2469/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report) C.A. No. 2470/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for exemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and Office Report) C.A. No. 5871/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and appln.(s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and Office Report) Date : 17/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Sanchita, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushal Gupta, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1907/2015. Sole respondent has already filed counter affidavit.Signature Not Verified Statement of Case has not been filed by either of the parties.Digitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2016.02.1916:55:36 ISTReason: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2470/2015. Two weeks time, as last opportunity is granted for takingfresh steps for the sole respondent. Notice be issued thereafter. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5871/2015. Sole respondent has already filed counter affidavit. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2469/2015.

Sole respondent has filed counter affidavit but vakalatnamahas not been filed. Be filed within three weeks time. List again on 02.05.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.58 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 21/01/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr Anjani Kumar Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Last opportunity of four weeks is granted to the ld. Counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit. List again on 5.4.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

SECTION­III   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5139­5141 OF 2015 Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore  ...Appellant ­VERSUS­ M/s. Inter Metal Trade Ltd. & Others  ...Respondents OFFICE REPORT The Office Report dated 4 th  November 2015 in the matter above­mentioned was listed on 6 th  November 2015 before the Ld. Registrar Court, when the following order was passed:­ “Counter affidavit on behalf of three of the respondents is awaited. Be filed within our weeks time. List again on 21.1.2016.” It is submitted that Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Counsel for the Respondents has not filed Counter Affidavit so far.  The Office Report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders. Dated this the 19 th  day of January, 2016.    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:  1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section.  2. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Advocate B­9, Sagar Apartments, 6 Tilak Marg, New Delhi­110001.    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C­2

6ITEM NO.58 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MR. PAWAN DEV KOTWAL Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUSM/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s)(with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay)Date : 21/01/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. Mr Anjani Kumar Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E RLast opportunity of four weeks is granted to the ld.Counsel for the respondents for filing counter affidavit.List again on 5.4.2016. (PAWAN DEV KOTWAL) Registrar

ITEM NO.22 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 Diary No(s). 36043/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S JSW CEMENT LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and office report) Date : 05/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. V. Balajee, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the civil appeal. Tag with Civil Appeal No.6542 of 2011. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.22 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 Diary No(s). 36043/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S JSW CEMENT LTD. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and office report) Date : 05/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Appellant(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, ASG Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. V. Balajee, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the civil appeal. Tag with Civil Appeal No.6542 of 2011. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2016.01.0616:44:05 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.59 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 06/11/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit on behalf of three of the respondents is awaited. Be filed within four weeks time. List again on 21.1.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

SECTION­III IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5139­5141 OF 2015 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1­3 [Application for condonation of delay in filing petition of appeal] Commissioner of  Central Excise, Indore ......Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s . Inter Metal Trade Ltd. And Others  .......Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The Office Report dated 4 th September 2015 in the matter abovementioned was listed befroe the Hon'ble Court on 7 th September 2015, when the following orders were passed: “Among three respondents herein, respondent No.1 has yet to file the counter affidavit. Be filed within four weeks.  Service of the remaining respondent Nos.2 and 3 is still awaited. List again on 6.11.2015.” It is submitted that Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has on 4 th September 2015 filed Vakalatnama/ Appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, but he has not filed Counter Affidavit so far.  The office report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders. Dated this the 4 th  day of November, 2015.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR   Copy to:­ 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate,  Central Agency Section. 2. Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, Advocate B­9, Sagar Apartments,  6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi.  C3                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¢ ITEM NO.59 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 06/11/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Counter affidavit on behalf of three of the respondents is awaited. Be filed within four weeks time. List again on 21.1.2016. (RACHNA GUPTA) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byHema JoshiDate: 2015.11.0617:36:01 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.72 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 07/09/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Among three respondents herein, respondent No.1 has yet to file the counter affidavit. Be filed within four weeks. Service of the remaining respondent Nos.2 and 3 is still awaited. List again on 6.11.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

SECTION­III IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5139­5141 OF 2015 Commissioner of  Central Excise, Indore ......Appellant(s) ­Versus­ M/s . Inter Metal Trade Ltd. And Others  .......Respondent(s) OFFICE REPORT The matter abovementioned was listed befroe the Hon'ble Court on 8 th  July 2015, when the Court was pleased to pass the following orders:   “Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay as well as on the appeals. ” There are Three Respondents. Show Cause Notice was issued to all the Respondents on 16 th  July 2015 through Regd. A.D. Post.  It is submitted that Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Advocate has on 2 nd September 2015 filed Vakalatnama/ Appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1, but has not filed Counter Affidavit so far. Neither A.D. Card nor unserved cover has been received back from Respondent Nos.2 to 3. The office report is listed before the Ld. Registrar Court for orders. Dated this the 4 th  day of September, 2015.        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR   Copy to:­ 1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate,  Central Agency Section. 2. Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Advocate B­9, Sagar Apartments,  6, Tilak Marg, New Delhi.  C3                 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITEM NO.72 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 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Civil Appeal No(s). 5139-5141/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and stay) Date : 07/09/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Pawan Shree Agrawal, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Among three respondents herein, respondent No.1 has yet to file the counter affidavit. Be filed within four weeks. Service of the remaining respondent Nos.2 and 3 is still awaited. List again on 6.11.2015. (RACHNA GUPTA) RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byRupam DhamijaDate: 2015.09.1017:18:58 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.85 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 MR. M K HANJURA Civil Appeal No(s). 6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 5306/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and appln.(s) for stay and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and Office Report) Date : 04/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. Mr.Niraj Gupta,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal No.6542/2011 The office report is that the Ld.counsel for the parties have failed to file the statement of case within the period stipulated under the rules. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as and when the connected one gets ready. … ......2

ITEM NO.85 -2- Civil Appeal No.5306/2015 The sole respondent shall be at liberty to file the counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. List the matter again on 06.11.2015. (M K HANJURA) Registrar SB

æ ITEM NO.85 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 MR. M K HANJURA Civil Appeal No(s). 6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH C.A. No. 5306/2015 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment and appln.(s) for stay and appln.(s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal. and Office Report) Date : 04/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. For Appellant(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath,Adv. Mr.Niraj Gupta,Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal No.6542/2011 The office report is that the Ld.counsel for the parties have failed to file the statement of case within the period stipulated under the rules. Viewed thus, the matter shall be processed forSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushma Kumari Bajaj listing before the Hon'ble Court as and when the connected one getsDate: 2015.09.0913:08:42 TLTReason: ready. .........2ITEM NO.85 -2- Civil Appeal No.5306/2015 The sole respondent shall be at liberty to file the counteraffidavit within a period of four weeks. List the matter again on 06.11.2015.

(M K HANJURA) RegistrarSB

ITEM NO.7 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 Diary No(s). 39220/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S BSR AND CO. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and condonation of delay in filing appeal and office report) Date : 31/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gajendra Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Ashish Goel, Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Notice. Tag with C.A. No. 1907 of 2015. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. Registrar

Z ITEM NO.7 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 Diary No(s). 39220/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S BSR AND CO. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for c/delay in re-filing appeal and condonation of delay in filing appeal and office report) Date : 31/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gajendra Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Ashish Goel, Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Notice. Tag with C.A. No. 1907 of 2015. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] A.R.-cum-P.S. Asstt. RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byCharanjeet KaurDate: 2015.07.3116:45:15 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.107 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. 7272/2005 COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 23/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Anandh K., Adv. Mr. Ambarish Pandey, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is stated at the Bar that the issue involved in this appeal has already been referred to a larger Bench and the reference order is reported in ' Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Grasim Industries Ltd. ' [ 2009 (14) SCC 596]. The Registry is directed to tag the instant matter along with the aforesaid matter. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\230 ITEM NO.107 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. 7272/2005 COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 23/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Anandh K., Adv. Mr. Ambarish Pandey, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R It is stated at the Bar that the issue involved in this appeal has already been referred to a larger Bench and the reference order is reported in 'Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. Grasim Industries Ltd.' [2009 (14) SCC 596]. The Registry is directed to tag the instant matter along with the aforesaid matter.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySuman WadhwaDate: 2015.07.25 (Nidhi Ahuja) (Suman Jain)12:13:05 ISTReason: COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

SECTION­III  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7272 OF 2005 Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore                                                            ...Appellant ­VERSUS­ M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd.                                                                                    ...Respondent OFFICE REPORT It is submitted that Service of Notice of Lodgment of Petition of Appeal is complete as the sole respondent is represented through Mr.  M.P. Devanath , Advocate. The appeal is ready for hearing. The matter above­mentioned is listed before Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 16th day of May, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to:  1. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate Central Agency Section 2. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Advocate B­6/10, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi­110029    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c2

ITEM NO.29 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 Diary No(s). 16728/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal.) Date : 08/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hatihi, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the applications for condoation of delay as well as on the appeals. (Neetu Khajuria) Sr.P.A. (Vinod Kulvi) Assistant Registrar

. ITEM NO.29 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 Diary No(s). 16728/2015 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S. INTER METAL TRADE LTD. AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal.) Date : 08/07/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kabir Hatihi, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice on the applications for condoation of delay as well as on the appeals. (Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi) Sr.P.A. Assistant RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byNEETU KHAJURIADate: 2015.07.0816:19:35 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.139 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 Diary No(s). 39220/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S BSR AND CO. Respondent(s) (office report on default) Date : 13/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks’ time, by way of last chance, to comply with office-report dated 14.03.2015. (R.NATARAJAN) (VEENA LAKHINA) Court Master Court Master

ü ITEM NO.139 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 Diary No(s). 39220/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S BSR AND CO. Respondent(s) (office report on default) Date : 13/04/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT [IN CHAMBER] For Appellant(s) Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time, by way of last chance, to comply with office-report dated 14.03.2015. (R.NATARAJAN) (VEENA LAKHINA) Court Master Court MasterSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byGulshan Kumar AroraDate: 2015.04.1617:10:40 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.9 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. 4/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s).6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) (for stay and office report) Date : 27/02/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Bhuvanesh Satija, Adv. Mr. Ambarish Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, ASG Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw I.A. No.4. I.A. No. 4 is dismissed as withdrawn. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

º ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.9 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. 4/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s).6542/2011 M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s) (for stay and office report) Date : 27/02/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Appellant(s) Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. P. Devanath, AOR Mr. Bhuvanesh Satija, Adv. Mr. Ambarish Pandey, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Kaul, ASG Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw I.A. No.4. I.A. No. 4 is dismissed as withdrawn. (SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySanjay KumarDate: 2015.02.2813:07:32 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.11 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 Diary No(s). 41287/2014 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Rupesh Kuamr, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tarun Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Shashi Mathews, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Kishsore Kunal, Adv. Mr. Tushal Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. Registrar

Ü ITEM NO.11 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 Diary No(s). 41287/2014 COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI Appellant(s) VERSUS M/S ERNST & YOUNG PVT. LTD. Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for condonation of delay in filing appeal and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Appellant(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, ASG Mr. Rupesh Kuamr, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Tarun Gulati, Adv. Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Shashi Mathews, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud,Adv. Mr. Kishsore Kunal, Adv. Mr. Tushal Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Notice. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Vinod Kulvi ] Court Master Asstt. RegistrarSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byCharanjeet KaurDate: 2015.02.0917:37:20 ISTReason:

xITEM NO.25 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 PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 13065/2013(From the judgement and order dated 25/10/2010 in ITA No.7/2010 of TheHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR)CCE NAGPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD.& ANR. Respondent(s)With IA 1 ( c/delay in refiling SLP,c/delay in filing SLP and office report)Date: 22/11/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGHFor Petitioner(s) Mr. S.K. Bagaria, ASG Mr. Alji K. Joseph, Adv. Ms. Risha, Adv. for Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. for Mr. M.P.Devanath,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Connect with C.A. No.6032 of 2012.|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) ||Court Master | |Court Master |

ÚITEM NO.52 COURT NO.15 SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 13065/2013(From the judgement and order dated 25/10/2010 in ITA No.7/2010,of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)CCE NAGPUR Petitioner(s) VERSUSM/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD.& ANR. Respondent(s)(Office report on default)Date: 21/10/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR (IN CHAMBERS)For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.Khairati, 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 Last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file proof of serving a copy of the SLP paper book on the caveator within two weeks.|(Anita Malhotra) | |(Veena Lakhina) ||Sr.PA | |Court Master |

âITEM NO.60 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). 5945 OF 2010 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASCOMMR.OF CEN.EXC.INDORE Appellant (s) VERSUSM/S KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD. Respondent(s)(With office report )Date: 19/10/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.Varun Thakur,adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appellant has filed the Statement of case. No appearance for the respondent. No further steps. Hence, place the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

ÌITEM NO.41 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. 6542 OF 2011M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MYSORE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay and permission to file additional documents andexemption from filing legible copies of dim annexures and office report)Date: 17/09/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKURFor Appellant(s) Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG Ms. Priyanka Mathur Sardana, Adv. Mr. Aman Ahluwalia, Adv. Mr. Gurpreet S Parwanda, Adv. Ms. Monika Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is admitted. | [ Charanjeet Kaur ] | | [ Kusum Gulati ] ||Court Master | |Court Master |

zITEM NO.7 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). 6542 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASM/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay,permission to file additional documents and officereport ))Date: 31/07/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms.Prakriti Purnima,adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent has filed vakalatnama. Granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. List the matter on 14.09.2012.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB

ITEM NO.102 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). 6542 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASM/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for stay,permission to file additional documentsand office report ))Date: 10/05/2012 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Await return of notice of the sole respondent. List the matter on 31.07.2012. (Sunil Thomas) RegistrarSB

ÈITEM NO. 12 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. 6542 OF 2011 (For Prel.Hearing)M/S.MYSORE MINERALS LTD. Appellant (s) VERSUSCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,MYSORE Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay,permission to file additionaldocuments and exemption from filing legible copies of Dimannexures and office report)Date: 04/11/2011 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVEFor Appellant(s) Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Adv. Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. Mr. L Badri Narayan, Adv. Mr.M.P.Devanath,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice in the appeal to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. [ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Veena Khera ] Court Master Court Master

Search This Case

Indian Kanoon Google Scholar Google

Supreme Court Resources

SC Case Status by Diary Number Search by CNR Number Supreme Court of India Official SC Website (external)

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India

Allahabad High Court

Uttar Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Andhra Pradesh

Bombay High Court

Maharashtra

Calcutta High Court

West Bengal

Chhattisgarh High Court

Chhattisgarh

Delhi High Court

Delhi

Gauhati High Court

Assam

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Jammu & Kashmir

Jharkhand High Court

Jharkhand

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka

Kerala High Court

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh

Madras High Court

Tamil Nadu

Manipur High Court

Manipur

Meghalaya High Court

Meghalaya

Orissa High Court

Odisha

Patna High Court

Bihar

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab / Haryana / Chandigarh

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan

Sikkim High Court

Sikkim

Telangana High Court

Telangana

Tripura High Court

Tripura

Uttarakhand High Court

Uttarakhand