AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.3 OF 2004 Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II. ... Applicant Vs. M/s. HBL Nife Power Systems Limited. ... Respondent Mr. R.G. Bhatt for the applicant. None for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- 1. None for the respondent though served. 2. The application was admitted on the following questions of law: “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon' ble Tribunal was justified in holding that in terms of Notification No.214/86 dated 25th March, 1986, the Respondent is not liable to pay the Excise Duty in respect of the goods cleared by its Job Worker to them without payment of Duty? AJN 2 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the duty liability arising on incorrect availment of Notification No.214 of 1986 dated 25th March, 1986 is the liability of the Job Worker i.e. Modison Limited and not that of the Respondent? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that even while operating under Notification No.214 of 1986 dated 25th March, 1986 the Job Worker i.e. M/s. Modison Limited is the manufacturer of the goods and not the Respondent? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon' ble Tribunal was correct in holding the clause 2(i)(b) of Notification No.214 of 1986 does not arise for consideration while determining whether or not the Respondent is liable to pay Excise Duty for failure to satisfy the condition of Notification No.214 of 1986. 5. Whether the Hon' ble Tribunal was correct in holding in the facts and circumstances of the case that the normal position of the duty liability being paid by the manufacturers of the goods would also arise in the case of goods removed without payment of duty under Notification No.214 of 1986 dated 25th March, 1986 by the Job Worker to the Supplier of the raw materials i.e. the Respondent? 6. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon' ble Tribunal was correct in holding that on reading of the Notification No.214 of 1986 dated 25th March, 1986, the supplier of raw-material is not liable to pay duty on the goods received without payment of duty even it fails to fulfill the conditions of the Notification on the basis of which it received AJN 3 goods from the job worker without payment of duty?” 3. The basic question involved in this application is, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the respondent has fulfilled the conditions specified in Notification No.214 of 1986 dated 25/3/1986 when, in fact, the respondent had approached the Settlement Commission seeking settlement of dispute on the footing that the conditions of the Notification have not been fulfilled. In our opinion, on the facts narrated above, the questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 4. Hence, the application is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to forward a statement of case raising the aforesaid questions of law for the opinion of this court. The statement of case may be forwarded to this court as expeditiously as possible. Application is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]