TATA CHEMICALS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the Special Leave Petitions, Writ Peti tions, Civil Appeal and the Transfer Applications involve identical issues, they are taken up together for disposal. When SLP (C) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000 were listed for admission, it was noted that earlier SLP (C) Nos. 8203-8212 of 2000 (M/s. Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.) filed against the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2000 of Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tri bunal, New Delhi (in short CEGAT) were dismissed with the observations that the orders of the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi, were recommendatory; and that an appeal lies against determination; and that determination had yet to be made by the Central Government.

(2.) A two-Judge Bench hearing the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000 noted that the challenge before the CEGAT was not only against the determination of the Designated Authority but also against the Customs Notifica tion dated 27th October, 1998 whereby anti-dumping duty was imposed. The Bench noted that this aspect was not apparently brought to the notice of the Bench when it passed the order dated 11th May, 2000, and the order of CEGAT itself does not refer to the Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998 which was impugned in the present Special Leave Petitions. The Bench observed that because of the same proba bly the Court was led to believe that the appeal had been filed before the issuance of the notification of determination. Therefore, the notice was issued in the SLPs. When the matter was heard by a two-Judge Bench on 5-3-2002, the following order was passed :

(3.) The Bench felt that there was conflict in the two orders. The order dated 11-5-2000, referred to above reads as follows :