ORDER 1. The appellant is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India. Under the Export and Import Policy of the Government, as framed from time to time, schemes were formulated whereby jewellery manufacturing units were permitted to import primary gold of 0.995 fineness for the purpose of manufacture and export of gold jewellery, subject to certain value addition norms. Such units were permitted to set up manufacturing facilities within the specified export processing zones (for short "EPZ") or in special export oriented complexes subject to these units being 100% export oriented units (in short "EOUs"). 2. Pursuant to the above scheme, a number of manufacturers/exporters set up units in the Noida EPZ. Under the scheme, the appellant was a I nominated agency which could also import goods including gold for supply of the same to exporting units of the EPZ for manufacture and export as per terms and conditions of the EXIM Policy and as per Notification No. 177 of 1994 which granted exemption from payment of duty on goods such as raw materials, components, etc. imported into India by gem and jewellery units for manufacture of gems and jewellery for export out of India• or for the promotion of export of gems and jewellery, subject to certain conditions. Notification was also made applicable to silver and gold imported by the appellant and State Bank of India for being supplied to gem and jewellery units in EPZ under the scheme for export of gold and silver jewellery and articles. 3. The appellant filed bills of entry for import of gold which was issued to four units approved for manufacture and export of gold jewellery, namely, M/s Amit Jewellers, Mis Goldex, Mis Zavart Overseas and Mis Unique Jewellery. The gold imported by the appellant and supplied to the abovementioned four units was not utili sed for manufacture and export of jewellery/articles which was in contravention of the conditions of Notification No. 177 of 1994 and the EXIM Policy and the bond executed both by the appellant as well as by the individual units. Similar zone was set up in Jhandewalan as well. 4. The show-cause notices were issued proposing recovery of customs duty from the appellant, imposition of penalty as well as penal action against the four units. For the years 1991-1996, the gold was imported for EPZ at Jhandewalan and 1996-1998. for the EPZ at Noida. Similar zone was set up in Jhandewalan as well. 4. The show-cause notices were issued proposing recovery of customs duty from the appellant, imposition of penalty as well as penal action against the four units. For the years 1991-1996, the gold was imported for EPZ at Jhandewalan and 1996-1998. for the EPZ at Noida. The Commissione of Excise and Customs confirmed the demand for the gold imported in the : ear 1992-1997 at Rs 34,80,000, Rs 29,61,750, Rs 36,74,598.35p. and Rs 29,00,000 relating to the gold supplied• to Mis Amit Jewellers, M/s Goldex, Mis Zavart Overseas and Mis Unique Jewellers respectively. Four separate adjudication orders were passed and the Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs 5,00,000, Rs 2,00,000, Rs 10,00,000 and Rs 2,00,000 respectively. For Jhandewalan EPZ, the duty demand of Rs 7,07,01,428 was dropped by the Commissioner, against which the Department filed appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant also preferred four appeals before the Tribunal relating to Noida EPZ for which the demand was confirmed. 5. The Tribunal consolidated the five appeals and disposed of them by a common order. Appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal filed by the Revenue against dropping of demand of Rs 7,07,01,428 was accepted and in addition penalty of Rs 25 lakhs was imposed. 6. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed a reference application in the High Court under Section 130-A(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") which requires the High Court, on being satisfied that a question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal, to direct the Tribunal to refer the questions of law raised within 120 days from the receipt of such direction after drawing up a statement of the case. 7. The appellant filed a consolidated reference application raising the following questions of law: "(i) Whether the liability for payment of customs duty can at all be on MMTC which is a canalising agency, even though the conditions of fulfilment of export under Customs Notifications Nos. 177/94 and 3/88, Chapter 8 of the Exim Policy and Procedure, PEP Circular No. 22/88, and Customs Circulars Nos. 10/88 and 2/92, all require the gem and jewellery units located in the EOU/EPZ, to fulfil the export obligation, and upon their failure to do so, to pay/suffer, duties, fines and penalties. 177/94 and 3/88, Chapter 8 of the Exim Policy and Procedure, PEP Circular No. 22/88, and Customs Circulars Nos. 10/88 and 2/92, all require the gem and jewellery units located in the EOU/EPZ, to fulfil the export obligation, and upon their failure to do so, to pay/suffer, duties, fines and penalties. (ii) Whether, as a consequence of the appointment of MMTC as canalising agency for the import of gold, MMTC can be made liable for payment of customs duty in the event the unit commits a breach of its obligation to export the jewellery made from such gold, and thereby allow all such defaulting units to escape scot-free of any liabilities. (iii) Whether the findings by the Hon'ble Tribunal that 'the scheme provides for issuing of gold by Mis MMTC to the unit only on the strength of bill of entry filed by the unit and duly assessed', does not lead to the conclusion that once the gold is issued to a unit, the liability for payment of duty in the event of default gets automatically transferred to the unit to whom the said gold is issued. (iv) Whether there can be any requirement read into REP Circular No. 22/98, as held so by the Hon'ble Tribunal, namely, that 'MMTC has a responsibility/continuing obligation to monitor the activities of the exporting unit and to ensure export of gold/jewellery within a stipulated period of time following which M/s MMTC has to inform the Customs Authorities and to levy penalty on the unit for extension of period on expiry', when, in fact there is no such requirement laid down in the REP circular itself. (v) Whether the finding by the Hon'ble Tribunal that 'M/s MMTC had also executed bond with NEPZ Customs under the warehousing provisions of the Customs Act, and had undertaken to satisfy the Customs Authorities that the gold imported by them will be utilised for export as per the scheme of export of gold jewellery by units in the EPZ and they were also under an obligation to pay the customs duty' and penalty chargeable on such goods, together with interest', is sustainable when in fact no such warehousing bond was before the Tribunal as part of record of the present case, and in fact no such condition can be prescribed in a warehousing bond in view of Section 59(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that where any goods are transferred by the owner of a bonded warehouse to another person, the authorities shall obtain a bond for the transferred goods from the transferee, and thereupon ,he bond executed by the transferor shall stand discharged to the extent of the goods transferred out of his charge. (vi) Whether any penalty could be imposed upon MIs MMTC in the absence of any evidence implicating MMTC with the breach of the scheme or the conditions of the notification, and in the absence of any finding that the import of gold was made pursuant to a conspiracy to ( illegally divert the gold. (vii) Whether in the facts of the present case, any penalty could at all be imposed, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories1, wherein it was held that TOCL, which was wholly owned and controlled by the Government was not 'likely to evade' the law, while being engaged in the ( supply and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products, in order to ensure an effective and efficient supply system, mutatis mutandis, the same legal position should apply to the facts of the present case where, as a matter of governmental policy, it was decided to arrange the import of gold through M/s MMTC, apparently with a view to ensure an effective and efficient supply system." 8. The High Court, instead of proceeding in terms of the provisions of Section 130-A of the Act, confirmed the order of the Tribunal as if it is deciding the appeal/case finally on merits. 9. The High Court, instead of proceeding in terms of the provisions of Section 130-A of the Act, confirmed the order of the Tribunal as if it is deciding the appeal/case finally on merits. 9. The counsel for the appellant contends that the High Court has erred in not proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 130-A of the Act in requiring the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court on such questions which the High Court opined to be the questions of law. The counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute this proposition. 10. As the contention raised by the appellant is not disputed by the Revenue, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the high Court and remit the same to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. We would request the High Court to dispose of the reference application expeditiously.