9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of this case the appellant was deligent in perusing the matter? If so, its effect on application for condonation of delay; (ii) Whether the time consumed in lifting embargo placed by the Government in obtaining prior permission before litigating with another Government department constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay? If so, to what consequence; (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the law cited the learned Tribunal erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal." The appellants had filed two appeals against the order-in-original dated 9-5-1991. The appeal had been filed belatedly. Hence, they had filed an application for condonation of delay of 139 days. They had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, learned SDR contended that there did not arise any question of law for reference to the High Court in the present case. The Bench had dismissed the appeal under Section 35B(v) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and had held that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The appeal pertained to one of rate of duty and therefore, no reference would lie in such cases as per Section 35G of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. She relied on the following rulings :- India Jute Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1984 (16) E.L.T. 640] Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Hydraulics Ltd., Madras [1984 (16) E.L.T. 254] Union Carbide India Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court is that from such an order a question of law should arise. In this case, both the conditions stipulated in Section 35G of the Act, has not been satisfied. The appeal pertained to the eligibility of C.C. pipes manufactured with the aid of power and its classification under TI 68 of the erstwhile First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, the appeal disposed of by the Tribunal under Section 35C pertained to one of rate of duty and also value of goods for purpose of assessment. As can be seen from the question of law raised by the appellants, they are more in the nature of facts and its appreciation for condonation of delay. The Tribunal not having been satisfied with the cause shown rejected the COD filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the order in question is not one relating to the value of the goods for the purposes of assessment. In 1984 (16) E.L.T. 640 (India Jute Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta) the question arose regarding the interpretation of the words having a relation to the rate of excise duty. During the course of examination of this question, the ruling of Supreme Court reported in (A.I.R. 1961 SC 1633) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. was referred to. The Supreme Court, inter alia, held that when a question of law is raised before the Tribunal but the Tribunal failed to deal with it, it must be deemed to have been dealt with by it and is, therefore, one arising out of its order. Following that ruling even if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
