9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal which they wanted to be referred to the High Court for their advice. On going through the application and on a preliminary hearing of the matter, the Bench found that the question of limitation had in fact been raised during the hearing of the appeal which did not find a mention in the order. Accordingly the Bench took the view that the Reference Application should be treated instead as an application for rectification of mistake in the order passed. The matter was, therefore, heard as a Rectification Application when Shrimati Archana Wadhwa appeared for the applicants and Shri J. Singh for the respondent Collector. 2. The application for rectification of the order arises from the fact that the appeal had raised the plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri J. Singh. He supported the order. 5. We have considered the submission about limitation and the case law cited in support thereof. It is contended that the Department came to know about the alleged non-accountal of the crown corks in 1986 whereas the show cause notice was issued in 1989. On this account it is not possible to accept the plea that the notice was time-barred. The show cause notice levelled the charge of removal of aerated water bottles corresponding to the number of crown corks issued but not accounted for. Wilful and intentional suppression of production and evasion of duty have been alleged. There is nothing in the language of Section 11A(1) proviso or the definition of the term "relevant date" under sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Any appearance of their representative before the Assistant Collector after the detection of the case was apparently in the course of investigation. The delayed issue of show cause notice thereafter though not justified or proper did not vitiate the notice as such. Date of such knowledge is not one of the relevant dates under Section 11A(3) of the Act. The Tribunal had considered the submissions and agreed with the findings including the application of the extended time limit, though a specific finding thereon was not recorded. This is made good now and this order is passed in amplification of the earlier order dated 25-7-1994, spelling out the finding on the plea of limitation. The plea is rejected and the order passed is confirmed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
