1994 (11) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the reference application.
2. Authority to file the reference application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Condonation of Delay:
The case involved an appeal regarding excess weight of Tobacco due to the addition of chemicals and perfumes. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the respondent. However, a question of law was raised regarding the Tribunal's decision based on a hypothetical assumption of no weight gain. The reference application for this matter was filed with a delay of 28 days, exceeding the 60-day limit. The application cited "unavoidable circumstances" as the reason for the delay. The Assistant Collector signed the application for condonation of delay, but it lacked specific day-to-day reasons for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of justifying delays with sufficient cause, as per legal precedents. The lack of detailed reasons for the delay led to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.

Authority to File Reference Application:
The Respondent's advocate argued that the Collector, under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, was required to file the reference application personally and could not delegate this power to an Assistant Collector. Citing a relevant case law, it was contended that the power to file such applications could not be delegated. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector had filed the reference application on behalf of the Collector, which was not in compliance with the statutory requirements. The Tribunal highlighted the specific conditions under Section 35G, emphasizing that the application must be filed by the Collector or the other party within 60 days. The Tribunal concluded that as the reference application was not filed by the Collector of Central Excise but by the Assistant Collector, it was not maintainable in law. Consequently, the reference application was dismissed as non-maintainable on this ground.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of condonation of delay in filing the reference application and the authority to file the application under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application due to the lack of specific reasons for the delay, emphasizing the need for sufficient cause to justify delays. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the reference application as non-maintainable because it was filed by the Assistant Collector instead of the Collector of Central Excise, as required by law.