1986 (4) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the special period prescribed in Section 11A to review show cause notices issued under the third proviso to Section 36(2) even if Section 11A had not been brought into force.
2. Power of superintendence of the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and its binding effect on the Special Benches of the Tribunal situated at Delhi.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 11A Time-Limit

Background and Legislative Context:
The core issue revolves around whether the time-limit specified in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, applies to review show cause notices issued under the third proviso to Section 36(2) even though Section 11A had not been brought into force. Section 36 was amended by Act XXV of 1978, which introduced the proviso that references the time-limit specified in Section 11A. However, Section 11A itself came into force only on 17-11-1980.

Arguments and Precedents:
- The Tribunal had conflicting views in earlier cases (1984 ECR 1527, 1984 (15) E.L.T. 157, and 1984 (4) ETR 58) regarding the applicability of the time-limit specified in Section 11A before it came into force.
- Mrs. V. Zutshi, SDR, argued that since Section 11A was not in force, the time-limit specified therein should not apply. She cited the decision in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 112 (Patel Prabhudas Purushottamdas v. U.O.I. & Others) to support this view.
- Shri Soli Sorabji, senior counsel for the respondents, argued that the time-limit specified in Section 11A should be read into the third proviso of Section 36(2) as it is legislation by incorporation. He emphasized that the legislative intent was to apply the time-limit irrespective of the enforcement date of Section 11A.

Judgment and Reasoning:
- The Tribunal concluded that the third proviso to Section 36(2) should incorporate the time-limit specified in Section 11A. The rationale was that Act 25 of 1978, which amended both Section 36 and introduced Section 11A, was passed as a composite enactment.
- The Tribunal referred to several precedents and principles of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that the intention of the legislature was to apply the time-limit specified in Section 11A even if the section itself had not come into force.
- The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 421 (Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. U.O.I.) and the Allahabad High Court in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 711 (Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. v. U.O.I.) had taken similar views, supporting the incorporation of the time-limit specified in Section 11A into Section 36(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the special period prescribed in Section 11A would apply to review show cause notices issued under the third proviso to Section 36(2) even if Section 11A had not been brought into force.

Issue 2: Power of Superintendence of the Delhi High Court

Arguments:
- Mrs. Zutshi, SDR, contended that the Tribunal could follow any High Court decision since different High Courts had taken different views. She referenced the case of Atma Steel (1984 (17) E.L.T. 331) to support this argument.
- Shri Soli Sorabji argued that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution extended to all quasi-judicial bodies and Tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. He cited several precedents to support the binding nature of the Delhi High Court's decisions on the Tribunal.

Judgment and Reasoning:
- The Tribunal noted that it was not necessary to give a definite finding on this issue for the purpose of the case at hand. The primary focus was to reconcile divergent views expressed by the Tribunal on the question of limitation.
- The Tribunal acknowledged that the Delhi High Court, along with other High Courts like the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts, had propounded similar views on the applicability of the time-limit specified in Section 11A.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal refrained from expressing a definitive view on the power of superintendence of the Delhi High Court under Article 227, considering it unnecessary for the resolution of the primary issue.

Final Reference:
The present reference is answered in terms of the conclusion reached in Para No. 39, affirming that the special period prescribed in Section 11A applies to review show cause notices issued under the third proviso to Section 36(2) even if Section 11A had not been brought into force.

← Previous Next →