https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44190 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. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:17:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44190 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44190