9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicants have raised 8 questions of law for reference to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. It is seen from the record that the present proceedings relate to Appeal Nos. E/832 to E/835/89-C filed by M/s. Shalimar Rubber Industries and Others against the common Order-in-Original No. 50/88, dated 5-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin imposing penalty on the appellants, apart from confirming demand of duty. The Order-in-Original also directed confiscation of land, building, etc. of the appellants factory with option of redemption as well as absolute confiscation of seven rolls of tread rubber. 4. The Tribunal by its order dated 9-4-1996 had reduced the penalty amounts. Barring the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicants have formulated 8 questions of law for reference to the Hon ble High Court as under :- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon ble Tribunal was justified in law, in rejecting the ROM Application for the reasons stated in the order dated 6-2-1997? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case this Hon ble Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake in the order dated 9-4-1996 and holding that no injustice had been done to the applicant by not permitting the cross-examination of Sunny P. Kunnath, Manager of Universal Agencies? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon ble Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake in the order dated 9-4-1996 in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the respondent/Collector, Shri Madan, learned SDR submitted that the eight questions of law raised in the application were actually disputed questions of fact and no question of law as such had been raised in the said application and, therefore, it may be dismissed. 9. Learned Counsel for the applicants Shri M. Chandersekharan submitted that since the present reference application arose from an order disposing an application for rectification of mistakes, the issues largely related to questions of fact rather than question of law, the Tribunal may consider the application on its merits. 10. We have considered the eight questions of law formulated by the applicants for reference to the Hon ble High Court and hold as under :- Qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 9-4-1996 in paragraphs 15 and 16 has considered the role of Sunny P. Kunnath. The names of the purchasers shown in the invoices were found to be fictitious. The endorsement in the recovery Memo as well as the letter dated 22-6-1987 was also considered by the Tribunal and only on that basis the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the invoices actually related to sale of carbon black to M/s. Shalimar Rubber Industries. This finding therefore does not give rise to any question of law. Question No. 5 : As regards question No. 5, the Tribunal had in paragraph 20 of its order dated 9-4-1996 relied on the decision of Indian Cork Mills Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1984 (17) E.L.T. 513 for coming to the conclusion that it was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
