Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Suraj Udyog Ltd.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2003 Supreme(P&H) 483

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
N.K.Sodhi and N.K.Sud JJ.
Commissioner Of Central Excise
Versus
Suraj Udyog Ltd.
Central Excise Case No. 88 of 2001,
Decided On : APRIL 1, 2003

Important Points

The only remedy available to the Department in such cases is to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Clause (b) of Section 35L of the Act.

Subject

Civil Law - Administrative Law

Act Referred

CENTRAL EXCISE ACT : S.35(l), S.35(h)(1), S.35(h)

Headnote

Mandamus - Central Excise Act - The court held that the petition for mandamus requiring the Tribunal to refer questions of law was not maintainable, and the only remedy available to the Department was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Clause (b) of Section 35L of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The Revenue filed a petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a mandamus requiring the Tribunal to refer questions of law arising from its order dated 8-8-2000.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petition was not maintainable and the only remedy available to the Department was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Clause (b) of Section 35L of the Act.

Issues: The issue was whether the petition for mandamus requiring the Tribunal to refer questions of law was maintainable under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that on a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 35H and 35L of the Act, the petition for mandamus was not maintainable.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

Judgment

N.K.Sodhi, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act) for a mandamus requiring the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to refer the questions of law which according to the Department arise from the order of the Tribunal dated 8-8-2000.

2. We have perused the order dated 8-8-2000 passed by the Tribunal and find that one of the questions raised before it pertained to valuation of the goods for the purpose of levying excise duty. On a conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 35H and 35L of the Act, we are of the view that the present petition is not maintainable and the only remedy which is available to the Department is to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Clause (b) of Section 35L of the Act.

3. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.