IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CEA No.96 of 2009(O&M) Date of Order: 6.10.2009 M/s United Chain Industries ...Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J Learned counsel for the appellant states that while hearing the application for stay, the Tribunal has decided the main appeal, which has resulted in causing prejudice to the case of the appellant. He has further submitted that the order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.2.2008 (Annexure A.2) has also not been taken into account by the Tribunal and, therefore, great prejudice has been caused to the case of the appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at some length, we are of the view that if the aforesaid facts are correct, then the remedy of the appellant is to file appropriate application before the Tribunal and seek rectification of the order of the Tribunal instead of rushing to this Court because this Court could admit the appeal only on a substantive question of law as envisaged under Section35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the appellant is relegated to the remedy of filing rectification application before the Tribunal. Appeal stands disposed of. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE October 06, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE