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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the question on the meaning of the expression "remained closed" in Notification No. 283/82-CE was referable under section 35G, and whether the application for reference was maintainable in respect of the questions raised.
Analysis: The application for reference was confined to questions of law that could properly arise from the Tribunal's order. A broadly framed question seeking a general review of the Tribunal's decision was not referable. Questions seeking interpretation of a taxing notification were rejected where the language was unambiguous, since the object or purpose of the notification could not control clear words. Likewise, recourse to words used in another part of the statute was treated as a settled interpretive method. Applying these principles, the Tribunal held that the dispute on the expression "remained closed" in the notification did raise a referable question, while the other questions did not.
Conclusion: Only the composite question on whether "remained closed" in Notification No. 283/82-CE applied to a case where clearances occurred during the relevant period was referred to the High Court; the remaining questions were held not referable.
Ratio Decidendi: A question is referable under section 35G only if it arises as a proper question of law from the Tribunal's order, and an unambiguous taxing notification must be construed by its plain language without recourse to its purpose.