1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Central Excise. ...Applicant vs. M/s.Girish Textile Industries. ...Respondent. --- Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Ms.N.V.Masurkar, for applicant. Mr.M.R.Baya, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 21st October,2008. P.C.:- 1. This application was admitted on 13.7.2005 on the following question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the 2 circumstances of the case and in law, the CEGAT was right in allowing the Respondents' appeal without going into facts and merits of the case and following the decision of the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of Beauty Dyers Vs. UOI & ors. (2002(52 RLT 36(Mad)) wherein Rule 3 issued under notification 42/98 was struck down as ultra vires of Section 3A of the Act holding that the manufacturer is liable to pay duty in terms of section 3 ?” 2. In this case, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of Madras High Court in the case of “Beauty Dyers Vs. UOI & ors. (2002(52 RLT 36 (Mad)), wherein Rule 3 was struck down as ultra-vires of Section 3A of the Act. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the Revenue against such decision is pending before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In this view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, the question raised by the Revenue needs consideration. Accordingly, the 3 application is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to forward a statement of the case raising the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolutely accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)