9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred for the opinion of a Larger Bench by the concerned Special Bench. The appeals remained pending in the said Bench and the point referred for the opinion of the Larger Bench was decided, along with other points which arose during the hearing before the Larger Bench, by Order dated 7-6-1984. 2.No appeals were disposed of by the said Order, which in fact remained pending in the Special Bench, as already noted. The concluding para of the Order only says that points raised and discussed were answered in the manner stated therein. The points so determined by means of the Order under reference were returned to the Bench that had made the reference to the Larger Bench, for disposal of the appeals by them; It was specifically mentioned that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for hearing by the same Larger Bench which had earlier heard the points referred by Special Bench B, and recorded the Order, in relation to which these applications have been made. Shri V. Laxmikumaran represented the petitioner Collectors whereas respondents in Reference Application at Sr. No. 1 above were represented by Shri H.S. Sharma, Advocate, and respondents in the Reference Application at Sr. No. 2 by Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant, whereas none appeared for respondents in third application. 6.It was noticed that two of the Reference Applications have not been filed within the requisite period of 60 days as stipulated by Section 35-G (1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the Order of the Larger Bench, which has occasioned the Reference Applications, falls within the category of an order as contemplated under Section 35G(l) of the Act. He very fairly conceded, after comparative reading of Sections 35-C and 35-G that the order, within the meaning of Section 35-G(1), under which the Reference Applications have been moved, is an order which finally disposes of an appeal. In face of this situation, he had no arguments to offer. He, rather in his usual candid manner, brought to our notice two judgments of Allahabad High Court in matters arising out of reference applications to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. References, for statement of a case to the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner Income-tax, U.P. v. Shamsher Jang Bahadur [1951 (20) Income Tax Reports p. 31]; and (2) Munna Lal and Sons v. Commissioner, Income Tax, U.P. [1965 (55) Income Tax Reports p. 508] held that reference application to the Tribunal under that Act could lie only on orders, finally disposing of an appeal, and in both the cases interim orders having been passed by the Tribunal, the same were held to be not maintainable. 12.We find that the Reference Applications before us, face a similar situation. Section 35-G(1) of the Act clearly indicates that Reference Applications under that provision, lie only out of orders passed under Section 35-C of the Act. We have noted that under this provision, only an order which finally disposes of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
