Commissioner Customs Department vs Smt. Nirmala Mitra on 28 June, 2004
In the matter of Anoop Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.42 seconds)Documents citing
Anoop Kumar vs Commissioner Of Cus. (Prev.) on 12 April, 2002
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Cestat on 15 February, 2005
)], and Anoop Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), W.B. the one given in the context of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, Section 35G, and the other in the context of the Customs Act, 1962, Sub-section 125, 130 and 143, also support the view that during pendency of a reference application before the High Court the Appellate Tribunal concerned would possess the requisite power to make interim orders.
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Saktigarh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. on 16 December, 2004
6. The first question which we need to ascertain is as to whether the High Court is a civil court when it exercises its jurisdiction in reference under Section 35H. This question had cropped up in many a case before the High Courts and the Supreme Court in relation to the jurisdiction of reference provided in various enactments which are identical with those of Section 35H. The jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with the reference in any of the enactments including Section 35H of the Central Excise Act is advisory in nature. It only answers the question of law referred to it. It does not decide the case, which remains to be decided by the Tribunal according to the answer given by the High Court on the question of law referred to it. Thus, the reference jurisdiction is confined only to the giving of advice and it does not stretch to anything else. Thus, the High Court does not exercise its normal jurisdiction, which is otherwise available in it. It has also been held that while exercising jurisdiction in reference, the High Court cannot exercise its inherent power. It was so held in the decision by the learned Single Judge in Anoop Kumar v. Commissioner of Custom (Prev.), W.B. - that the High Court cannot grant stay while exercising jurisdiction in reference. The proposition is well settled.
1