9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dressed to the Assistant Collector but submitted to the Jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The claim filed was within the stipulated period of six months. The Supdt. received the same and ultimately forwarded the same to the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector. By the time the same was received by the Assistant Collector, the period of six months had already expired and hence, the Assistant Collector, vide his Order No. V(68)18-290/82/3065 dated 23-6-1982, rejected the claim as time-barred, and the said order stood confirmed in appeal by the Collector (Appeals) vide his Order No. HN-2111/PN/314/85 dated 29-1-1986. 3. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, this Bench vide impugned order, held that going by the contents of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific, any course, other than the one statutorily provided for, could not be adopted, and if adopted, the same is deemed to have been adopted at their own peril, and could not protect the party to the same, against applicability of the statutory provisions regarding limitation, and the Assistant Collector could justifiably reject the claim as barred by limitation. Pleading that the strict compliance of the statutory provisions is necessary, and that there could be no estoppel in that regard, the Ld. SDR had referred to the decision of the East Regional Bench of this Tribunal in Hindustan Motors v. Collector of C. Ex. CMS., 1984 (16) E.L.T. 647 (Tri.), where the Single Member Bench has, on practically identical facts as those here, hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is not in conformity with the wordings of the statute, and consequently the ratio of the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Inchek Tyres v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 236) would not stand attracted. A clear distinction exists between the statutory provisions and the procedural provisions, and the decision of the Calcutta High Court is clearly in relation to the statutory provisions. 9. Filing or physical presentation of an application addressed to the competent authority statutorily empowered to determine on an issue, is a mere procedural aspect and the law on the issue, has never gone contrary to the dictum that procedural irregularities may not jeopardise the substantive or statutory right of a person un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adopted by this Bench in the impugned order. 12. Therefore, with the view adopted by this Bench in the impugned order being in confirmity with the case law as has developed subsequent to the decision in Re: Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) given by a Single Member Bench, in the year 1983, and that too, as indicated above, being ex facie based on reading of the statutory provisions, not in conformity with the actual wordings of the specific section, and which in effect, with the subsequent contrary decisions from the Benches comprising of more than one member, cannot be accepted as the one providing any cogent reason for referring the issues as framed, to the High Court, under Section 35G of CESA, 1944. 13. Even the questions of estoppel ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
