1983 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 challenging the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad.
- Dispute regarding the timeliness of the appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
- Interpretation of the relevant date for calculating the time limit for filing an appeal.
- Examination of whether the appeal was against the order of the Collector or the quantification of duty by a subordinate officer.
- Assessment of the necessity of a formal demand for duty issued by the Assistant Collector.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras was brought under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, seeking to set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, dated 21-8-1973. The appeal was treated as a revision application under Section 35P of the Act, challenging the Central Board of Excise and Customs' order dated 28-4-1978, which rejected the appellant's appeal as time-barred. The Board found that the appellant's appeal was received after three months from the date of the order appealed against, contravening the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

The appellant contested the Board's decision, arguing that the relevant date for calculating the time limit should be the date when the Superintendent of Central Excise quantified the duty payable by the appellant-company, which was before the appeal to the Board. However, the Tribunal noted that the appeal was against the Collector's order, challenging violations under specific rules, not the quantification of duty by a subordinate officer. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was substantive against the Collector's order, not the duty amount calculated later.

The Tribunal further analyzed the necessity of a formal demand for duty issued by the Assistant Collector, concluding that the appellant-company, operating under the Self Removal Procedure, possessed the necessary information to calculate the duty themselves based on approved valuation and classification lists. The Tribunal deemed the direction to the Assistant Collector in the Collector's order as superfluous, as the appellant had the means to determine the duty amount independently.

Ultimately, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was indeed received late at the Board's office, a fact not disputed by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Board's decision as legally and factually sound, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.