1985 (5) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding retrospective applicability.
2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone delay in presentation of rebate claims.
3. Applicability of procedural law retrospectively in the context of limitation under Section 11B.

Analysis:
1. The Collector of Central Excise sought reference under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding the retrospective applicability of Section 11B. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal's earlier ruling in a Bench case established the importance of the limitation period under Section 11B as indicative of public policy. However, the Member (J) noted that even if a judgment is erroneous, it may not warrant a reference, especially if the issue is not raised or considered in the specific case. The Member found no merit in referring the matter to the High Court based on this issue.

2. The second issue raised was whether the Tribunal has the authority to condone delays in rebate claim applications. The Senior Departmental Representative contended that only the Collector could exercise such discretion. The Member clarified that if the adjudicating authority, like the Collector, has discretionary powers, the Tribunal, as an appellate body, could also possess such powers. Consequently, the Member dismissed the notion that this issue required a reference to the High Court.

3. The third point of contention revolved around the retrospective application of procedural law, particularly in relation to Section 11B. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that if the limitation under Section 11B is retrospective, the Collector's discretion in condemning delays would be affected. However, the Member highlighted that procedural laws are generally retrospective unless they significantly impact substantive rights without express or implied retrospective application. Despite this argument, the Member concluded that in the factual context of the case, there was no legal question necessitating a reference to the High Court. Therefore, the application for reference was rejected based on this issue as well.