1989 (7) TMI 268 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for review show cause notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a review show cause notice issued by the Government of India to M/s. Industrial Gases (Bihar) Ltd. against an order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. The review proceedings were transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The key issue raised at the outset of the hearing was regarding the limitation of the review show cause notice under the proviso to sub-section (2) of erstwhile Section 36 of the Act.

The learned consultant representing the respondents contended that the review show cause notice was time-barred, as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 36. The notice was dated July 1981, and it was argued that it was issued after the expiration of the limitation period prescribed by the Act. The Central Government, through the notice, sought to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and restore the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ranchi, or pass any other appropriate orders after considering the submissions of the assessee.

Upon examination of the review show cause notice and relevant provisions of the Act, the Tribunal found that the notice was indeed issued after the expiry of the limitation period specified under Section 36(2). The notice did not pertain to non-levy of duty, short-levy, or erroneous refund, which would have triggered the extended period of limitation under Section 11-A. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the clear provisions of Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which mandate that a review show cause notice must be issued within the prescribed limitation period. Since the notice in question was issued beyond the statutory timeframe and did not involve matters warranting an extended limitation period, the appeal was dismissed solely on the basis of being time-barred, without addressing the substantive merits of the case.