1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs .. Appellant. Versus Technoforce (I) Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.R.V. Desai, senior advocate with Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for the Appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD April, 2008 DATED : 3RD April, 2008 DATED : 3RD April, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in declining to admit the appeal of the Revenue observing that there is neither a recurring issue nor a question of law ? 2. We have perused the order of CEGAT dated 23-1-2001, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the appeal only on the ground that the issue is not a recurring issue and no question of law is involved. It is totally improper on the part of the Tribunal which is the highest fact finding authority under 2 the Act, to dispose of the matter without discussing the merits of the case. In the ordinary course, we would have set aside the order and remanded the matter, however, in view of the fact that the claim involved herein is only Rs.5,086.36 and the same has already been refunded to the assessee, we do not consider it proper to remand the matter back to the Tribunal. 3. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.