2016 (4) TMI 1340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ile admitting the appeals, by an order dated 16.04.2015, Division Bench had framed following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in referring the appeals for decision of Larger Bench by incorrect reading of the decisions in the case of CC New Delhi v. Sameer Gehlot reported in 263 ELT 129 [Tri. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by the Tribunal can be said to be passed in accordance with law?" 2. Though multiple questions have been framed, the central issue involves the correctness or the authority of the Tribunal to make a reference to a larger Bench. Upon perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal was confronted with conflicting decisions of two benches of the Tribunal on an identical question .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he same." 3. We do not see any error in the approach adopted by the Tribunal. When the Tribunal recorded that the two Benches had given diagonally opposite decisions, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in making a reference. Even if the department were of the opinion that one of the judgements could be distinguished on facts, the same would not give rise to a substantial question of law. Being .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X