https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34049 The Department challenged the referral order citing lack of jurisdiction, absence of cause, and factual errors. The referral bench's authority to decide at the stay stage was contested. The Department criticized the order for not considering relevant judgments. Factual errors were pointed out, impacting the Department's arguments. The use of "prima facie" views was disputed. Legal provisions and precedents supporting referral to a Larger Bench were discussed. The Larger Bench's powers to regulate proceedings were affirmed. Judicial discipline and consistency in decisions were emphasized. The referral to the Larger Bench was upheld despite dissenting opinions, with the decision pronounced on 27-5-2009. en-us Wed, 27 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34049 The Department challenged the referral order citing lack of jurisdiction, absence of cause, and factual errors. The referral bench's authority to decide at the stay stage was contested. The Department criticized the order for not considering relevant judgments. Factual errors were pointed out, impacting the Department's arguments. The use of "prima facie" views was disputed. Legal provisions and precedents supporting referral to a Larger Bench were discussed. The Larger Bench's powers to regulate proceedings were affirmed. Judicial discipline and consistency in decisions were emphasized. The referral to the Larger Bench was upheld despite dissenting opinions, with the decision pronounced on 27-5-2009. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 27 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34049