Revisional jurisdiction upheld after CEGAT constitution, while captive acetylene gas excisability remained undecided pending reference ruling.

Central Government revisional jurisdiction was upheld because the impugned order was treated as having been made before the constitution of the CEGAT. The objection that revision could not be exercised after the tribunal's creation was rejected. On excise liability, the status of acetylene gas captively consumed in manufacturing trichloroethylene was not finally determined, because the issue was kept pending for decision after the Constitution Bench ruling in the referred matter. The text therefore confirms the jurisdictional position while leaving the excisability question open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Central Government retained jurisdiction to exercise revision after the constitution of the CEGAT, and whether acetylene gas used captively in the manufacture of trichloroethylene was liable to excise duty notwithstanding its mention in the tariff entry.

Outcome: The objection to revisional jurisdiction was rejected as the impugned order was treated as having been made before the constitution of the CEGAT. The question of excisability of captively consumed acetylene gas was not finally decided and was kept pending for decision after the Constitution Bench ruling in the referred matter.

---