2010 (8) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Division Bench in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2009 (243) E.L.T. 542 (Tri.-Bang.) was delivered in Stay Application and it was not a Final order passed disposing the matter. Being so considering the law laid down in relation to the matters which could be referred to Larger Bench, there could have been no reference in the matter in hand and it was for the Division Bench to take appropriate view while disposing the stay application as the order passed in Sujana Metal Products Ltd. was not binding upon the Division Bench therein in the present matter. 2. This reference has been made in relation to the issue as to whether the amendment introduced to Rule 6(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Such order gets merged in the final order disposing the proceedings. Being so, unless the order attains the finality, any observation in relation to any point of law in any such interim order cannot attain finality nor it can be said that such order settles the point of law. For the same reason, any observation even in relation to point of law in any such interim order cannot have the effect of binding precedent. Obviously, therefore, question of reference on the basis of such an order cannot arise. 5. The Apex Court in Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 had clearly ruled that it is a matter of common knowledge that the interim order passed by the particular Court on certain consideration can ....