1984 (8) TMI 331 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Review of order by Collector under Section 35A(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Time limitation for issuing review notice; Scope of proviso to Section 11A regarding suppression or mis-statement; Interpretation of limitation period for review notice; Allegations of non-disclosure by appellants.

Analysis:

1. Review of Order by Collector: The appeal to the Tribunal challenged the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, which reviewed the Assistant Collector's order dated 18-11-1980. The Collector issued the review notice on 13-11-1981 under Section 35A(2) of the Act, questioning the duty demand raised by the Assistant Collector.

2. Time Limitation for Review Notice: The main contention of the appellants was the time-bar issue. The Collector's power to issue a review notice within six months of the original order was challenged. The appellants argued that the review notice issued after more than six months of the Assistant Collector's order was not valid under Section 35A(3)(b).

3. Scope of Proviso to Section 11A: The Collector contended that the proviso to Section 11A allowed a five-year period for review due to alleged non-disclosure by the appellants. However, the appellants argued that the proviso's reference to suppression or mis-statement pertained to the time of clearances, not post-adjudication review.

4. Interpretation of Limitation Period: The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the limitation period for review notices. It referenced previous judgments by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, establishing that the six-month period for review notice calculation starts from the date of the Assistant Collector's order.

5. Allegations of Non-disclosure: The Collector claimed that non-disclosure by the appellants justified a longer review period. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the Collector's review was based on existing facts known during the original adjudication and did not involve new revelations post-adjudication.

6. Decision: The Tribunal held that the review notice issued after the six-month limit was time-barred. It concluded that the Collector could not rely on the proviso to Section 11A for an extended review period in the absence of new information post-adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order based on the review notice dated 13-11-1981 and allowed the appeal.