1985 (8) TMI 172 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal on the question of limitation.
2. Whether a question of law arises regarding the time limit for issuing notice in cases of short levy of Central Excise duty.
3. Whether the order in question relates to the value of the goods for the purposes of assessment, warranting a reference to the High Court under Section 35G.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The respondents filed a revision application against the order of the Appellate Collector demanding differential duty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the question of limitation, following a previous decision. The Department now contends that a question of law arises concerning the time limit for issuing notice in cases of short levy of Central Excise duty before 6-8-1977. The Department argues that the law applicable should be the one in force when the short levy occurred under Rule 10A. The Tribunal's decision was based on a precedent and the Department seeks a statement of the question to the High Court under Section 35G.

2. Section 35G allows a reference to the High Court on questions of law arising from an order, excluding those related to the rate of duty of excise or the value of goods for assessment purposes. The Tribunal's order involved a question of valuation concerning the cost of manufacture of metal containers. Although the appeal was decided on the limitation issue, the order still relates to the value of goods for assessment. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal must address all questions raised before it, even if not explicitly dealt with. Therefore, the order is deemed to relate to the determination of the value of goods for assessment purposes, falling within the scope of Section 35G.

3. In a similar case under the Customs Act, it was held that any order made by a judicial tribunal is inherently linked to the case before it, regardless of whether it is decided on a preliminary issue. The order is not void but is made in relation to the case being decided. Applying this principle, the Tribunal's order in the present case, even though disposed of on a preliminary ground, still pertains to the value of the goods for assessment. Consequently, the contention that Section 35G applies is rejected, as the order directly relates to the assessment of goods. Therefore, the application for reference to the High Court is dismissed.