Challenging Tribunal Order on Marketability of Chemical Preparations for Photographic Use: Jurisdictional Clarification Needed

The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order on the marketability and excisability of "chemical preparations for photographic use." The issue revolves around whether these goods are marketable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, impacting their excisability. The conflicting views on the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Tribunal orders, especially post the 2014 amendment, necessitate clarification. To address this, the matter is referred to a larger bench for resolution and to ensure uniformity in legal interpretation and jurisdictional clarity.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order of the Tribunal
- Questions of law regarding marketability and excisability of goods
- Violation of principles of natural justice
- Disapproval of marketability of goods established in previous order
- Failure to appreciate the order of the Apex Court
- Conflict regarding jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain appeals from Tribunal orders

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order holding that "chemical preparations for photographic use" are not marketable goods under Chapter 37 heading 3707 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, impacting their excisability.

2. The primary issue is the excisability of the "chemical preparation of photographic use," which hinges on its marketability. The absence of marketability renders goods non-excisable.

3. The respondents argue that the appeal is not maintainable before the High Court due to jurisdictional limitations under Section 35G(1) of the Act, suggesting the remedy lies with the Supreme Court.

4. The conflicting views in previous cases, such as Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. and Bajaj Auto Ltd., raise questions about the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain appeals on issues of taxability and excisability.

5. The conflicting interpretations of the amended Section 35L of the Act, especially regarding the appealability of Tribunal orders pre and post the 2014 amendment, require clarification to ensure consistency in legal interpretation.

6. Given the conflicting views within the High Court, it is deemed necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench to resolve the apparent conflict and provide clarity on the jurisdictional aspect of entertaining appeals from Tribunal orders.

7. The Registry is directed to present the case before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench to address key questions regarding the appealability of taxability and excisability issues from Tribunal orders, ensuring uniformity in legal interpretation and jurisdictional clarity.

---