1996 (5) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 for reference on the issue of confiscation and penalty.
2. Whether Man-made Fabrics attracting Additional Duty of Excise are subject to confiscation and penalty provisions.
3. Challenge of Delhi High Court decision and applicability of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Interpretation of relevant case laws and applicability of penal provisions under different Acts.
5. Retroactive effect of amendments to the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957.

Analysis:
1. The Department sought reference on the issue of confiscation and penalty under Section 35G of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, based on an order involving duty demand under the Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Tribunal set aside confiscation and penalty based on precedents like the Delhi High Court's decision in M/s. Pioneer Silk Mills case.

2. The main issue raised was whether Man-made Fabrics, subject to Additional Duty of Excise, should face confiscation and penalty like other excisable goods. The Department argued for High Court reference, citing Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court decisions supporting the application of penal provisions under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

3. The Department contended that the Delhi High Court's decision was challenged and not binding, while referring to other judgments indicating the applicability of penalty provisions. However, the Tribunal found that the Delhi High Court's decision remained valid, and subsequent amendments to the Act were substantive, not clarificatory, thus rejecting the need for High Court reference.

4. The Tribunal analyzed various case laws and concluded that the Delhi High Court's decision on confiscation and penalty for evasion of Additional duty of excise was still valid. The Tribunal highlighted that the amendments made post the Delhi High Court judgment were substantive and not retrospective, indicating no ambiguity in interpreting the Act before the 1994 amendment.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Department's plea for High Court reference, stating that there was no uncertainty in interpreting the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 before the 1994 amendment. The decision emphasized that the Delhi High Court's ruling remained in force, and the amendments were not clarificatory but substantive in nature, thus not warranting a reference to the High Court.