Judgment :- RAJU, J The above reference has been made at the instance of the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for our determination and opinion on the following question of law : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that on a harmonious interpretation of Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 and Section 11A and Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the order of refund has become final at the hands of a quasi-judicial authority." * 2.The respondent mills are engaged in the manufacture of non- cellulosic spun yarn falling under Tariff Item 18(E) of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1944. The said yarn manufactured is utilised in the same factory for manufacture of man-made fabrics, or in other words "Captively Consumed" in the factory. The respondent filed a claim on 12-12-1980 for a sum of Rs. 5, 184/- consequent upon the orders of the appellate Collector of Central Excise dated 8-2-1980. The claim came to be rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the same was confirmed on appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, on the ground that Section 51(2) of the Finance Act, 1982 laid down that all duties of excise, assessed or collected and levied and assessed or collected before 20-2-1982 should be deemed to have been validily collected. The respondent pursued the matter by means of an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Act. The Tribunal hold that Section 51(2) of the Finance Act, 1982 does not have the effect of overriding or superceding by taking away the effect of other Section 11A or 11B of the Act. Not satisfied, the reference in question came to be made at the instance of the revenue. 3.Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent. The matter in issue is notres integraand is covered by an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the decision of this Court inJ.K. Spg. & Wvg. Not satisfied, the reference in question came to be made at the instance of the revenue. 3.Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent. The matter in issue is notres integraand is covered by an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the decision of this Court inJ.K. Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd.v.U.O.I. 1987 (S) SCC 350, 1988 AIR(SC) 191, 1987 (13) ECR 1280, 1988 (68) STC 421, 1987 (2) Scale 903 , 1988 (1) SCR 700 , 1987 (32) ELT 234 , 1987 SSCC 350, 1987 Supp(SCC) 350, 1988 SCC(Tax) 26 (S.C.)] wherein the Apex Court held the same view is that of the Tribunal in this case. In view of the above, the question referred to us for our decision is answered in the affirmative by holding that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 has no overriding effect or could not supercede the provisions contained in Section 11A or 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. No costs.