Dy. Commissioner Of Central Excise vs. Barnala Builders Partner Satish Jindal
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.21 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
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)....CC No(s). 11329/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/12/2013 in CWP No. 26929/2013 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
DY. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S BARNALA BUILDERS & PROPERTY CONSULTANTS Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP)
Date : 01/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for | |||
| Mr. B. Krishna Prasad ,Adv. |
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
On its face, the impugned order appears to be innocuous. But the question that has confronted us is, if the respondent herein files a statutory Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Pardeep Kumar
Date: 2014.08.02 02:50:03 IST appeal and the petitioners raise an objection that
Reason:
such appeal is not maintainable and ultimately the 2
objection of the respondents therein (petitioners herein) is accepted, then the matter will again reach this Court on the question of maintainability of such appeal. In a situation such as this, we
think it is appropriate to decide the question whether appeal is maintainable under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the order rejecting declaration under Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013. Delay condoned. Issue notice to the limited aspect noted above, returnable in ten weeks.
(PARDEEP KUMAR) (RENU DIWAN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER