Page 132 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

522 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan referred to an order of 2 Learned Judges of
this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Central Manufacturing Tech.
Institute reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 27 which reads as under :
“1. Leave granted. The High Court rejected an application for reference of
the question of law arising from the order of CEGAT and the High Court
agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and disposed of the matter stat-
ing that the question of law does not arise from the order of CEGAT. That
was not the stage at which the High Court could have expressed its views
on merits of the matter and the appropriate course for the High Court was
to call for a statement and then decide the matter in an appropriate manner
as provided under the law.
2. In that view of the matter, we set aside the order made by the High
Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh examination. The
appeal is allowed accordingly.”
We do not find anything in the text of Section 130A which implies that the High
Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every
case, where a reference is made. We say so because of the language of sub-section
(4) which opens with an ‘if’.
3. A reading of Sections 130A(1) & (4) would make it clear that if the
Commissioner of Customs or other party within the prescribed period of limita-
tion applies in the prescribed form to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tri-
bunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of
the Tribunal, the High Court may do so. What is clear on a reading of sub-section
(4) is that the High Court has a discretion on the facts of each case either to do so
or not to do so. This becomes absolutely plain from the first word in sub-section
(4), namely, “if”. We find nothing in the language of Section 130A which first
mandatorily obliges the High Court to call for a statement from the Tribunal be-
fore deciding any such application. The judgment in Commissioner of Customs,
Bangalore (supra) being incorrect is therefore overruled.
4. The question is answered accordingly and the appeals stand dis-
posed of.
_______
2020 (372) E.L.T. 522 (Del.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
CHAQUE JOUR HR SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. (C) No. 1999 of 2020 and CM Appl. No. 7047/2020, decided on 11-3-2020
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Rejection
of application without hearing - Natural justice - Petitioner’s application re-
jected by competent authority based on comments by investigating agency that
disputed amount not quantified and communicated prior to 30-6-2019 - Peti-
tioner contending that they had admitted due liability much earlier and com-
municated to Department - Since impugned order has been issued without
hearing petitioner, same set aside and matter remanded to competent authority
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  132