1983 (8) TMI 299 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the application for reference under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the application for reference.

Analysis:
1. The Collector of Central Excise filed an application under Section 35G(1) of the Act, seeking reference to the High Court. However, the application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, prompting the need for condonation of delay. The non-applicants raised concerns about not being served with the application and requested access to the documents before the hearing. The Tribunal questioned the maintainability of the application and the delay condonation, emphasizing the need to establish the application's validity. The Departmental Representative argued that the order in question primarily dealt with the determination of excise duty rate, making the reference application valid. However, the Tribunal found that the issues in the order pertained to the applicability of specific notifications and the excise duty rate, making it clear that the application for reference was misconceived and not maintainable under Section 35G(1).

2. The Tribunal also addressed the application for condonation of delay in filing the reference application. The application lacked specific details and failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant attributed the delay to an inter-ministerial reference, but the Tribunal found the explanation vague and unsatisfactory. It reiterated that the term "sufficient cause" should not be liberally interpreted, especially when dealing with government entities. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to justify the delay adequately, thereby rejecting the application for reference on grounds of both maintainability and limitation. The decision was pronounced in open court on 29th August 1983.

Editor's Comments:
The Editor's comments shed light on the provisions of Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Editor clarifies that the Tribunal's order must directly relate to the rate of duty or value of goods for a reference to the High Court or an appeal to the Supreme Court. In cases where the order does not specifically address these aspects but disposes of the appeal on other grounds, such as limitation or jurisdiction, a reference may still be maintainable. The focus should be on the subject matter of the Tribunal's order rather than the subject matter of the appeal itself. This distinction is crucial in determining the applicability of Sections 35G and 35L in excise duty cases.