HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Reference Application is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 29th July, 1987 in Order No. 545/1987. THE Applicant has set out the following questions as Questions of Law in the application :-

(2.) Shri Bhave of Applicant-company made general submissions on the Questions set out in the Reference Application and contended that the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) directing the applicant to make a pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal before him is itself an appealable order coming within the mischief and ambit of Section 35A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and the view of the Tribunal that such an order though in exercise of a discretion by a quasi-judicial authority in regard to pre-deposit during the pendency of an appeal is not an appealable order but is only as interlocutory order is not correct. The learned representative of the Applicant-company urged that a question of law would arise in this regard meriting reference to the High Court. It was further submitted that even though a view that such orders are only interlocutory orders has been by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, Shri Bhave urged that unless the question, which is a question of law, is settled either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court it would be referrable as a question of law in terms of Section 35 G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions made before us. A reference to certain factual details would be relevant for appreciating the issues involved in the application. The applicant herein preferred an apoeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, in appeal A. No. 106/87(G) against an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam. During the pendency of that appeal, the lower appellate authority directed the applicant herein to make a pre-deposit of the duty imposed by the original authority. The Applicant questioned the correctness of the same by way an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under the impugned order rejected the applicant's appeal on the ground that the appeal itself is incompetent and not maintainable in law, since the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) referred to supra is not a final order but is only an interlocutory order made during the pendency of the appeal before him. To a query from the Bench we are now informed by Shri Bhave that the appeal, which was pending before the lower appellate authority, has also been subsequently disposed of in favour of the Reference Applicant.