2006 (7) TMI 228 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application under Section 35(G)(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference to High Court on a question of law arising from CEGAT's order.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore filed an application under Section 35(G)(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Rule 218(1) of the Central Excise Rules, seeking a reference to the High Court to answer a question of law arising from CEGAT's order dated 9-4-1999 in Appeal No. E/3390/92-B-l/E/CC/426/92-B-l. The CEGAT had earlier dismissed a similar application by the Commissioner, leading to the present application before the High Court.

2. The High Court, after hearing the Assistant Solicitor General for the applicant and examining the case record, concluded that no referable question of law arose from the appellate order in question. The Court found that the proposed questions did not actually arise from the case or, if they did, were not suitable for reference to the High Court. Therefore, the Court upheld the CEGAT's decision to dismiss the Commissioner's application, thereby denying the request for a reference.

3. The Court noted that after the CEGAT's order remanding the case to the authorities for calculating the incentive back in 1999, there was no information on the progress of the case. Given the significant time elapsed without any stay of proceedings, the Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain any questions for reference. The Court emphasized that in a case of remand, especially considering the lengthy delay, it was not legally or procedurally justifiable to call for a reference, as it would serve no legal purpose or future guidance.

4. Additionally, the High Court clarified that in cases where the issue pertains to the determination of duty based on a notification, the appropriate recourse is to appeal to the Supreme Court rather than seeking a reference to the High Court. Considering the nature of the issue in this case, which was related to the rate of duty, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning that no application for reference could be entertained. Consequently, the Court found the Commissioner's application devoid of merit and dismissed it, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded in the matter.