1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2004 Commissioner of Customs (Import) ... Appellant V/s. M/s. Consolidated Photo & Finvest Ltd. & Ors. Respondents Mr. P.S.Jetly,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.N.S.Thacker with Mr. M.Subramanian, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 9th June,2009. P.C. 1. The learned Bench by its order dated 10th March,2005, admitted the Appeal on the following questions :- “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of Notification No.56/98-Cus dtd.01.08.98 and Notification No.22/99-Cus dtd.28.02.99 is available in respect of goods in question imported by the respondent ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the goods in question had been imported for sale as such, other than by way of High Seas Sale ?” While admitting the Appeal, this Court was pleased to observe 2 that it is subject to the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the appeal itself is not maintainable in view of Section 130A of the Customs Act,1962. 2. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Counsel drew our attention to a Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Auto Ignation Ltd 2002 (142) E.L.T.292 (Bom.). The Revenue does not contest the law laid down in the said Judgment nor are we on what has been argued before us consider taking a different view. Considering the ratio of the Judgment in Auto ignation Ltd. (supra), in our opinion, a matter pertaining to application of the notification would amount to determination of a question pertaining to the rate of duty and consequently this Court would have no jurisdiction. 3. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. It will be open to the Revenue to take such steps in law which they are entitled. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)