Cce Vs. Mittal Steel Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

1. this reference application is filed by the department stating that certain question of law has arisen out of the order of the tribunal in order no. 373/96 dated 27.3.1996.2. shri s. murugandi, the learned dr appearing for the department stated that the questions of law as formulated has arisen out of the order of the tribunal and may be referred to the hon'ble high court.3. shri rajesh chandrakumar, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the issue decided by the tribunal in the order related to rate of duty and therefore the proper course for the appellant was to file appeal before hon'ble supreme court in terms of section 35l of the cea, 1944.4. we have considered the submissions made by both the sides. it is seen that the tribunal in the order bearing no. 373/96 dated 27.3.1996 had dealt with notification 170/89 dated 16.8.1989 and 202/88.therefore, the question involved in the appeal had relation to rate of duty and that being so the proper course for the appellant was to file appeal before the hon'ble supreme court in terms of section 35l of the cea, 1944. in the premises, the reference application is incompetent.we, therefore, dismiss the same.

Judgment:

1. This Reference application is filed by the department stating that certain question of law has arisen out of the Order of the Tribunal in order No. 373/96 dated 27.3.1996.

2. Shri S. Murugandi, the learned DR appearing for the department stated that the questions of law as formulated has arisen out of the order of the Tribunal and may be referred to the Hon'ble High Court.

3. Shri Rajesh Chandrakumar, learned Counsel for the respondents stated that the issue decided by the Tribunal in the order related to rate of duty and therefore the proper course for the appellant was to file appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of Section 35L of the CEA, 1944.

4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is seen that the Tribunal in the order bearing No. 373/96 dated 27.3.1996 had dealt with Notification 170/89 dated 16.8.1989 and 202/88.

Therefore, the question involved in the appeal had relation to rate of duty and that being so the proper course for the appellant was to file appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of Section 35L of the CEA, 1944. In the premises, the reference application is incompetent.

We, therefore, dismiss the same.