1992 (6) TMI 38 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application of excise duty and penalty, appeal process before Appellate Collector and Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, interpretation of Section 35G(1) and (3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, compliance with Rule 218 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, requirement to formulate questions of law in reference application.

The judgment involves a trader who faced excise duty and penalty under the Central Excises and Salt Act for violating rules related to tobacco trading. The trader appealed to the Appellate Collector and later to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which reduced the penalty. Subsequently, the trader filed an application under Section 35G(1) of the Act to refer questions of law to the High Court. However, the Tribunal dismissed the reference application as no specific points of law were formulated. The trader then filed an Original Petition under Section 35G(3) of the Act.

The main contention in the case was whether the trader complied with the requirements of Section 35G(1) and (3) of the Act and Rule 218 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in formulating questions of law in the reference application. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have identified points of law from the detailed statement submitted. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the prescribed form, Form No. E.A. 6, necessitates the petitioner to specifically formulate questions of law for reference. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions and emphasized the importance of formulating questions of law as required in the prescribed form.

The Court delved into the provisions of Section 35G(1) and (3) of the Act, Rule 218 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Form No. E.A. 6 to determine the petitioner's compliance. It was highlighted that the petitioner failed to formulate any questions of law as required in the prescribed form. The Court cited precedents from the Punjab High Court and the Bombay High Court, emphasizing the importance of parties formulating specific questions of law for reference. The judgment reiterated that the Court should not direct the Tribunal to refer questions that were not formulated by the parties.

Ultimately, the Court held that the Original Petition filed under Section 35G(3) of the Act, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Tribunal to refer questions of law, was ill-conceived and not maintainable. Therefore, the Original Petition was dismissed.