https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92281 Questions relating to the rate of duty were held to fall outside reference jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the reference application was not maintainable and was rejected. The Tribunal's statement that consequential benefits would follow in accordance with law was treated as a general observation and not as a specific direction granting refund. Accordingly, no impermissible refund order was found in the Tribunal's decision. en-us Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:02:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92281 Questions relating to the rate of duty were held to fall outside reference jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so the reference application was not maintainable and was rejected. The Tribunal's statement that consequential benefits would follow in accordance with law was treated as a general observation and not as a specific direction granting refund. Accordingly, no impermissible refund order was found in the Tribunal's decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92281