1999 (4) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Controversy over the date of passing the order by the Principal Collector Delhi.
2. Interpretation of the expression 'make an order' in sub-section (3) of Section 35E.
3. Dispute regarding the manufacturing process of generating sets by a Pvt. Ltd. Co. with the aid of power.

Issue 1 - Controversy over the date of passing the order:
The case involved a controversy regarding the date of passing the order by the Principal Collector Delhi. The authorities failed to produce the relevant file of adjudication before the Tribunal as it was reported to be misplaced. However, it was noted that the adjudication order No. 101/88 was passed on 21-11-1988 by the Principal Collector based on entries in the register. The Board passed the order under Section 35E on 15th November, 1989, but it was communicated to the Commissioner on 27-11-1989. The Advocate argued that the order should be communicated to the Collector within one year, while the JDR contended that 'make' refers to passing the order. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments and referring to a Supreme Court judgment, overruled the objections of the Advocate for the respondents.

Issue 2 - Interpretation of 'make an order' in Section 35E:
The Advocate argued that the word 'make' in sub-section (3) of Section 35E should be interpreted as communicating the order passed by the Member of the Board within one year from the date of the decision of the adjudicating authority. The JDR, on the other hand, asserted that 'make' refers to passing the order. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and the Supreme Court judgment, ruled in favor of the JDR, stating that the order passed by the Board was within the ambit of Section 35E.

Issue 3 - Dispute over the manufacturing process of generating sets:
The dispute arose from the manufacturing process of generating sets by a Pvt. Ltd. Co. with the aid of power. The Revenue contended that the Pvt. Ltd. Co. was not entitled to the benefit of a specific notification as power was used in the manufacturing process. They argued that both the partnership firm and the Pvt. Ltd. Co. were one and the same unit. However, the adjudicating authority held in favor of the respondents, stating that power was not used in the assembly of generating sets. The Tribunal, after considering the Board's instructions and the arguments presented, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, agreeing with the Advocate that the generating sets were assembled without the aid of power, based on the Board's instruction dated 19-12-1985.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment covers the controversies and interpretations involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi.