1985 (7) TMI 118 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the period of limitation for the issuance of notice for recovery of short levy or non-levy demand.
2. Whether Reference Applications filed by Collectors are within the stipulated time frame.
3. Determining the maintainability of Reference Applications under Section 35-G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the interpretation of the period of limitation for issuing notices for recovery of short levy or non-levy demand, which was a common point in seven pending appeals before a Special Bench. The Larger Bench resolved this issue along with others in an order dated 7-6-1984. The Larger Bench clarified that its opinion was only advisory, and the pending appeals would be decided by the concerned Bench, incorporating the points resolved by the Larger Bench into the final order.

2. The Reference Applications filed by Collectors from Meerut, Ahmedabad, and Bolpur were collectively heard by the Larger Bench. While two applications were filed beyond the stipulated time frame of 60 days, one was within the time limit. The Collector from Ahmedabad filed the application after 90 days, which exceeded the extended period of 30 days. The Larger Bench decided to condone the delay for the Meerut Collector's application but rejected the Ahmedabad Collector's application due to being time-barred.

3. The Bench examined whether the orders that prompted the Reference Applications fell under Section 35-G(1) of the Act, which pertains to orders finally disposing of appeals. The Bench noted that the Reference Applications were not maintainable as they did not stem from orders under Section 35-C that conclusively disposed of appeals. The judges referenced similar cases from the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that reference applications should only be based on orders that definitively conclude appeals.

4. Despite arguments from representatives of the Collectors and respondents, the Bench concluded that the Reference Applications were not maintainable as they did not arise from orders that finally disposed of appeals. The judges dismissed all three Reference Applications due to their lack of basis in orders that met the criteria of Section 35-C of the Act, which requires a conclusive resolution of appeals for reference applications to be valid.