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 reference application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was maintainable despite the initially vague formulation of the question and the later addendum, and whether the formulated question warranted reference to the High Court.
Analysis: The original application was filed within limitation, though the question was not clearly framed. The later addendum merely clarified the point already raised and was not to be treated as a fresh application. On merits, the request for reference was held unsustainable because the Tribunal's earlier order had considered the relevant rules together, including the treatment of damaged or defective goods received under Chapter X procedure and the interplay between Rule 195 and Rule 196B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The formulated question isolated only part of the Tribunal's reasoning and omitted the other reasoning that supported the conclusion, so an answer on that limited question would not materially affect the decision already reached.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on limitation was rejected, but the prayer for reference to the High Court was not accepted and was rejected.