TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a reference application lay to the High Court against an order passed under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether any question of law arose from the Tribunal's order so as to warrant a reference to the High Court.
Issue (i): Whether a reference application lay to the High Court against an order passed under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Section 130(1) permits the Collector of Customs or the other party to require the Appellate Tribunal to refer any question of law arising out of an order under Section 129B, subject to the statutory exceptions. The order under challenge was one passed under Section 129B, and the statutory scheme did not exclude such an order from the reference jurisdiction merely because it arose from subsection (2).
Conclusion: A reference application did lie against the order passed under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (ii): Whether any question of law arose from the Tribunal's order so as to warrant a reference to the High Court.
Analysis: On the materials placed, the Tribunal found that the earlier disposal of the miscellaneous application had considered the facts, circumstances, and law. The present request did not disclose any legal issue requiring reference; the Tribunal treated the impugned findings as findings on facts rather than questions of law.
Conclusion: No question of law arose, and the reference was not warranted.
Final Conclusion: The reference jurisdiction was held to exist in principle, but the application failed because the proposed questions did not disclose any referable question of law.
Ratio Decidendi: A reference under Section 130(1) lies from an order under Section 129B only on a question of law arising out of that order, and where the impugned determination is one of fact, no reference is warranted.
TaxTMI 
