JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—This appeal is by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal and granting relief to the assessee in the light of Notification No. 43/2001 dated 26-6-2002 and 22/2003 dated 31-3-2003. The assessee received the inputs on which credit was taken. However, due to business exigencies some input material was removed to 100% EOU/manufacturer exporter under CT-3 Certificate/Annexure-1. The materials removed by the assessee were received by the recipients for manufacture of final products which were ultimately exported. The revenue authorities insisted that the assessee should reverse the input credit taken on the ground that the assessee themselves had not used the inputs for the manufacture of final products. Thereafter the assessee filed a refund claim which was rejected by the lower authorities. The assessee approached the Commissioner of Appeals who upheld the order of the lower authority. In the appeal preferred to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee had removed the goods only on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the Department. The user industry had also followed the procedure outlined under Notification 43/2001. 2. A careful reading of the Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, reveals that any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for use in the manufacture of the goods which may be exported. Therefore it held that there is no necessity that the goods should go to the EOU/exporter only from the manufacturer. The use of the word any other premises would indicate that the assessee could send even the inputs procured by him to EOU/Exporter and derive the benefit of Rule 19(2). In those circumstances the revenue was not justified in calling upon the assessee to reverse the input credit and therefore it held that the assessee is entitled to the refund of the credit reversed. 3. The revenue relies on Notification No. 22/2003 and 43/2001 and contends that the assessee in not entitled to the said benefit. The Tribunal relying on Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit. This appeal was admitted on 17-9-2009 to consider the following questions of law. 3. The revenue relies on Notification No. 22/2003 and 43/2001 and contends that the assessee in not entitled to the said benefit. The Tribunal relying on Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit. This appeal was admitted on 17-9-2009 to consider the following questions of law. (a) Whether the CESTAT is correct in holding that there is no necessity that the goods should be procured by the EOU/Exporter only from the manufacturer? (b) Whether the CESTAT can ignore the legal provisions and allow the benefit of cenvat credit to the assessee which is in violation of Rule 3(5) of Central Excise Rules, 2004? (c) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is justified in upholding the removal of inputs as such to 100% EOU under CT3 certificate without reversing the amount equal to the Cenvat credit availed by the assessee against the prescribed Rules? And whether the assessee is eligible for benefit of Notification No. 22/03 dated 31-3-2003 and Notification No. 43/2001 dated 26-2-2002? (d) Whether CESTAT is correct in allowing the refund which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals)? Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the two Notifications on which reliance is placed by the revenue. In other words, the appeal involves the interpretation of the aforesaid two Notifications. As the order relate to "among other things, the determination of question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise", it is the Apex Court alone which is competent to adjudicate the said dispute. The jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted. In that view of the matter the appeal is rejected reserving liberty to the revenue to approach the Apex Court.