2001 (7) TMI 161 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order on limitation.
2. Interpretation of Section 11A and Rule 223A regarding limitation.
3. Divergent views of the Tribunal on applying Section 11A to Rule 223A.
4. Referral to the Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions.

Analysis:

1. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) Order on Limitation:
The Revenue filed appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which allowed the respondent's appeal based on limitation. The Commissioner observed that earlier orders dismissing the Department's case on grounds of limitation and merits justified allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

2. Interpretation of Section 11A and Rule 223A Regarding Limitation:
The Revenue argued that Section 11A and Rule 223A serve different purposes, citing the Madras High Court's decision in Carborundum Universal Limited v. Union of India. They contended that no time-limit could be imposed under Rule 223A for the demand of duty.

3. Divergent Views of the Tribunal on Applying Section 11A to Rule 223A:
The Tribunal noted conflicting views on whether the limitation under Section 11A should apply to Rule 223A. While some decisions like National Fertilizers Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh held that Section 11A is not applicable to Rule 196, others like Laxmi Tobacco v. C.C.E., Raipur opined that Section 11A's limitation applies to Rule 196. Due to these conflicting views, the matter was referred to the Larger Bench for resolution.

4. Referral to the Larger Bench Due to Conflicting Decisions:
Considering the divergent views within the Tribunal on the issue, the case was deemed suitable for referral to the Larger Bench for a decision on the disputed legal issue. The registry was directed to present the case before the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench to resolve the conflicting interpretations.