1984 (2) TMI 320 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses High Court reference application, emphasizing distinction between questions of fact and questions of law.

The Tribunal rejected the application for reference to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as the issues raised by ... - Issues:1. Application for reference to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order:a. Reliance on conflicting evidence.b. Mention of Chemical Examiner's report in the show cause notice.c. Discrepancies in the R.G. 1 register not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice.3. Whether any question of law arises for reference to the High Court based on the Tribunal's order.The judgment pertains to an application for reference to the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The case involves the interception of a lorry carrying molasses without proper documentation, leading to penalties imposed on the owner of the molasses. The appellant, a sugar mill, was initially not penalized but was later fined by the Collector under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant sought a reference to the High Court based on three questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. These questions revolved around conflicting evidence, the mention of the Chemical Examiner's report in the show cause notice, and discrepancies in the R.G. 1 register not being specifically highlighted in the notice.The Tribunal rejected the application for reference, stating that the issues raised did not constitute questions of law but rather pertained to the appreciation of evidence, which is a question of fact. The Tribunal emphasized that the Collector's decision was based on various factors, including witness statements, the Chemical Examiner's report, and discrepancies in the appellant's register. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not challenged the validity of the Chemical Examiner's report during the appeal process and had failed to raise certain arguments before the Tribunal. As such, the Tribunal concluded that no question of law arose from the order that warranted a reference to the High Court.In analyzing the issues raised by the appellant, the Tribunal highlighted that the scope of a reference application is limited to questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. Since the appellant had not raised certain arguments during the appeal process, the Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to consider those issues in the reference application. The Tribunal emphasized that the order was comprehensive, covering various factual aspects of the case, and concluded that no question of law emerged from the order that necessitated a reference to the High Court. Consequently, the application for reference was dismissed.In summary, the judgment underscores the distinction between questions of fact and questions of law in the context of seeking a reference to the High Court. It highlights the importance of raising all pertinent arguments during the appeal process and restricts the scope of a reference application to issues directly stemming from the Tribunal's order.