SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top