1984 (4) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Application for reference to High Court under Section 35G of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
- Questions of law arising from Tribunal's order in Appeal No. ED(Del.)(T.) 130/82-NRB.
- Interpretation of proviso to Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules.
- Levy of penalty under Rule 173Q.
- Abatement of show cause notice due to rule repeal.
- Determination of "manufacture" under Rule 173H.
- Period of limitation for recovery of duties under Rule 173H.

Analysis:
1. The application by the Revenue sought a reference to the High Court of Allahabad based on questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order in Appeal No. ED(Del.)(T.) 130/82-NRB. However, the Applicant failed to provide a true and correct statement of facts initially, leading to confusion regarding the questions to be referred.

2. The Tribunal's order addressed various questions, including the applicability of the proviso to Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, the levy of penalty under Rule 173Q, abatement of show cause notice due to rule repeal, and the determination of whether there was "manufacture" under Rule 173H. The Tribunal's decision favored the Respondent on some questions and the Revenue on others.

3. The Tribunal's analysis of the proviso to Rule 10 emphasized that for an extended period of limitation to apply, there must be evidence of fraud, collusion, misstatement, or contravention of rules with intent to avoid duty payment. The Tribunal found that such conditions were not met in the case at hand, leading to a determination that the proviso did not apply.

4. The revised Annexure 'B' filed by the Applicant raised a question regarding the period of limitation for recovery of duties under Rule 173H. However, the Tribunal clarified that Rule 173H did not specify the period of limitation for duty recovery, and the application of Rules 9, 10, and 173Q would be relevant in such cases.

5. The Tribunal highlighted that the Applicant's attempt to seek a reference to the High Court was based on a misinterpretation of the issues decided in the Appeal. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Applicant's presentation of facts, indicating an attempt to distort the narrative to support the application for reference.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that the questions proposed for reference did not align with the actual issues determined in the Appeal. Additionally, the Respondent's cross-objections were also dismissed since the Reference Application was rejected, leading to the overall dismissal of the case.