1984 (3) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Restoration of reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Interpretation of proviso to Section 11A of the Act; Applicability of extended period of limitation; Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal; Question of rate of duty; Application of Rule 10(l)(a) to the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the restoration of a reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The application was dismissed for default but was ordered to be restored as both parties were willing to argue the case on merits. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act, specifically regarding the extended period of limitation for raising a demand. The applicant argued that without findings of fraud or contravention, the Department could not invoke the extended limitation period.

2. The Senior Departmental Representative contended that the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal based solely on the question of limitation under Section 11A. The Department argued that there was suppression of facts by the applicant, justifying the invocation of the extended limitation period. The Tribunal found suppression of sales by the applicant, leading to the Department's entitlement to invoke the extended limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that no question of law arose from this finding.

3. Another issue raised was the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise. The Department argued that the appeal focused solely on the question of limitation and not on the rate of duty or classification. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the lower appellate authority did not consider other aspects besides limitation. Additionally, the applicant did not participate in the appeal proceedings, limiting the scope of arguments that could be raised subsequently.

4. The judgment also addressed the contention regarding the applicability of Rule 10(l)(a) to the case. The applicant sought to raise this question as a point of law for reference to the High Court. However, since the issue was not previously considered by the Tribunal, the Court found no grounds for making a reference on this point. Ultimately, the reference application was rejected based on the above reasons.