2008 (3) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that earlier SLP (C) Nos.8203-8212 of 2000 (M/s Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.) filed against the judgment and order dated 21^st January, 2000 of Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT') were dismissed with the observations that the orders of the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi, were recommendatory; and that an appeal lies against determination; and that determination had yet to be made by the Central Government.       2.         A two-Judge Bench hearing the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000  noted that the challenge before the CEGAT was not only against the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....same submission.  Mr. P. Chidambram, the learned seniors counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a writ petition is already filed therefore this question may not be relevant.  In view of the importance of the question involved in these cases we think that it would be appropriate to place the cases before a three Judge Bench.  The Registry, is directed to seek orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and place the cases before a three Judge Bench preferably at an early date."              3.         The Bench felt that there was conflict in the two orders.  The order dated 11.5.2000, referred to abov....