2016 (10) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of three Central Excise Appeals bearing Nos. 38 of 2015, 40 of 2015 and 42 of 2015 as all the appeals have arisen out of common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). In CEA No. 38 of 2015, the issue raised is regarding valu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case are totally different from the case of Respondent? (iii)Whether the CESTAT is correct in relying upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s Universal Packaging Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V, which has not been accepted by the department and the appeal of the department is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court" Learned counsel for the respondent, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal was not maintainable before the High Court. The submission is that in view of the order passed by the Bombay High Court dealing with the issue in favour of assessee and the order passed by Madras High Court opining that appeal was not maintainable before the High Court, the issue being related to valuation and rate of duty, the present appeals before this Court are not maintainable. He fu....