Raymond Limited vs. Union Of India

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 4379 of 2005 M/s. Raymond Ltd. .. Petitioners V/s. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V. Shreedharan with Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Bharat Raichandani i/b. Mr. Prakash D. Shah for the Petitioners Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Counsel with Mr. V.H. Kantharia for the Respondents CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 20.07.2005. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the Respondents. Rule. The learned counsel for the Respondents waives service. It is made clear that this Petition is admitted only on the issue of "Res Judicata and Consequential Penalty" and it is also made clear that this Petition is not admitted on the main issue of "Valuation". Hearing expedited. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4379 OF 2005 AND WRIT PETITION NO.4516 OF 2005 M/s. Raymond Limited … Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others … Respondents Ms. Ginita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petitioner. Mr. J. B. Mishra for Respondents. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2021 P.C. : Heard Ms. Bodani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen that against the order-in-original bearing No.26/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/3850/2001 before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench, Mumbai ('CESTAT' hereinafter). Again, assailing the order-in-original bearing No.27/2001- Commissioner M-VI dated 09.10.2001, petitioner had filed appeal bearing No.E/43/02 before the CESTAT. Against the order-in-original No.21/CEX/Commissioner/99 dated 19.05.2019, petitioner had filed yet another appeal before the CESTAT being E/2449/99. First two appeals pertained to the factories of the petitioner situated at Thane whereas the last mentioned appeal pertained to the factory situated at Chhindwara in the state of Madhya Pradesh. All the three appeals were heard together by the CESTAT and were disposed of by the common order dated 08.04.2005. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 08.04.2005, petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No.4379 of 2005 (A.S.) before this Court which is pending. In the meanwhile, CESTAT modified its order dated 08.04.2005 by subsequent order dated 20.06.2005. This subsequent order has been put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.4516 of 2005 (A.S.). Both the matters are listed today on praecipe filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that Government of India has introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (briefly 'the scheme' hereinafter) for settlement of central excise and service tax disputes which have since been subsumed under the goods and services tax (GST). Petitioner had submitted declaration in respect of the two orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 pertaining to the factories at Thane. Additionally, petitioner filed declaration under the scheme in respect of the factory at Chhindwara before the designated committee at Chhindwara. In so far the declarations pertaining to Thane factories are concerned, it is submitted that designated committee, Thane has accepted the tax dues declared by the petitioner pursuant to which petitioner has paid the amount determined by the designed committee. However, in so far the declaration pertaining to Chhindwara factory is concerned, the tax dues determined by the designated committee is much in excess of the dues declared by the petitioner and, therefore, the same has been put to challenge by the petitioner before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench in Writ Petition No.7087 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far the disputes pertaining to the orders-in-original both dated 09.10.2001 relatable to the factories at Thane are concerned, the matter has been settled and, therefore, in terms of the scheme, petitioner is required to withdraw the two writ petitions. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer made for withdrawal of the writ petitions. In view of the above, we allow withdrawal of the two writ petitions pertaining to the orders-in-original dated 09.10.2001 relating to the factories at Thane. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of on withdrawal. Refund as per Rules. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.4379 of 2005 WITH WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2007 M/s. Raymond Limited ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Gihita Bodani i/b. Economic Laws Practice for Petition in WP No.4379 of 2005 and WP 4516 of 2007 CORAM:- G. S.KULKARNI, J. RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE :- JUNE 9, 2023. P. C.: . Both the Petitions have already been disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 27th January, 2021. Hence removed form the board. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) ( G.S. KULKARNI, J. )