1992 (1) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Reference to High Court - Extended period of limitation held by Tribunal to be not applicable

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand notice was barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
2. Whether any suppression of facts was involved in the case, and if so, could the extended period of limitation be applied?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-11 filed a Reference Application seeking to refer two questions of law to the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. The Tribunal had set aside the impugned order-in-original due to the demand notice being barred by limitation under Section 11A. The Collector contended that the proviso to Section 11A(1) should have been attracted, as the respondents had suppressed facts to evade duty. However, the Tribunal held that the mere quoting of certain rules in the show cause notice did not imply suppression of facts. The Departmental Representative argued that the mention of certain rules should be interpreted as an allegation of suppression, but the Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal dismissed the Reference Application, stating that no question of law had arisen for reference as the demand was time-barred.

Issue 2:
The second question raised was whether any suppression of facts was involved in the case and if the extended period of limitation could be applied. The Tribunal analyzed the show cause notice and found that there were no allegations warranting the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A(1). The Tribunal emphasized that the mere mention of specific rules in the notice did not amount to an allegation of suppression of facts. The Tribunal held that for the extended period of limitation to apply, there must be clear allegations of suppression in the notice, which were absent in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Reference Application, concluding that no question of law had arisen for reference to the High Court.

In a related argument, the learned J.D.R. contended that the point of limitation was not raised before the Original Authority, and therefore, the Tribunal should not have considered the respondents' argument on limitation. However, the Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision to support the position that a point of law can be raised for the first time even in the appellate stage, as long as it does not involve an investigation into facts. The Tribunal clarified that it had the power to consider new points of law at the appellate stage and decide the case accordingly. Thus, the second question regarding raising new points at the appellate stage did not warrant reference to the High Court, as it was a settled principle by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Reference Application, finding that no questions of law arose for reference to the Hon'ble High Court, as the demand notice was time-barred and no suppression of facts was evident in the case. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the show cause notice and relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the necessity of clear allegations to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A.