Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Ace Build (P) Ltd. on 26 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(122)ELT84(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The Revenue has filed the above reference application for reference of the following questions of law stated to have arisen out of Final Order No. 266/99-B1, dated 10.03.1999 [1999 (107) E.L.T. 308 (Tri.)] passed by the CEGAT :
"1. Whether the cutting, punching of holes, bending, assembling, welding, bolting etc. of the various raw materials namely angles, channels, sheets, flats etc., as a result of which different and distinct items namely trussess, purlines, columns and other steel structures come into existence, amounts to manufacture as enshrined in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not?
2. Is the Hon'ble CEGAT not bound by and required to follow the law already settled on the issue by a Larger Bench or an equivalent bench of CEGAT?
3. Is the Hon'ble Tribunal not required to refer the matter to the Larger Bench as there have been conflicting decisions on the issue involved? [Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal delivered in the case of Mohindera and Mohindera Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 152 (T)]."
2. At the outset, we note that the issue decided in the appeal relates to determination of a question having a relation to rate of duty of excise for the purpose of assessment. Hence, in the face of the clear language of Section 35G of Central Excise Act which provides that "the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party may, within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Section 35C (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessments), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order...."
We hold that the application is not maintainable and we accordingly reject the application.