TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects reference application, dismisses respondent's cross-reference as time-barred.</h1> <h3>PULLMAN ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LIMITED, CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA</h3> PULLMAN ENGINEERING CO. PVT. LIMITED, CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 226 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Limitation of the reference application.2. Validity of the reference application from a miscellaneous order.3. Alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules by the applicant.4. Determination of whether a question of law arises from the Tribunal's order.Detailed Analysis:1. Limitation of the Reference Application:The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the reference application was barred by limitation, citing that the appeal number mentioned in the application referred to an order dated 5th May 1983, which was served on the applicant much earlier. However, the applicant contended that the reference application pertained to a miscellaneous petition arising out of the said order, which was served on 21st September 1983. The Tribunal agreed with the applicant, noting the clerical error in the application form and confirming that the reference application was indeed within the limitation period.2. Validity of the Reference Application from a Miscellaneous Order:The respondent argued that no reference application could lie from an order passed by the Tribunal on a miscellaneous petition. The Tribunal, however, clarified that under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, an application could be made to the High Court for any question of law arising out of an order passed under Section 35C, which includes orders on miscellaneous petitions. The Tribunal cited comparative provisions from the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Income-tax Act, 1922, to support its interpretation that reference applications could be made from miscellaneous orders.3. Alleged Contravention of Central Excise Rules by the Applicant:The applicant, a manufacturer of engineering goods, was issued a show cause notice for allegedly removing goods without proper documentation and without paying the requisite Central Excise duty. The applicant denied the allegations, explaining discrepancies between the balance sheet and statutory records. The Collector did not accept the applicant's explanations and imposed a duty and penalty. The Tribunal had earlier confirmed the Collector's order, leading to the applicant filing a miscellaneous application, which was subsequently dismissed.4. Determination of Whether a Question of Law Arises from the Tribunal's Order:The applicant suggested that questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order, particularly regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's reliance on the applicant's balance sheet and the application of Rule 9A(5) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal, however, found that its conclusions were based on factual determinations rather than legal questions. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Balaram v. Volkart Bros., emphasizing that decisions on debatable points of law or acceptance of evidence do not constitute mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be rectified as such.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that no question of law arose from its order and rejected the reference application. Additionally, the respondent's cross-reference application was dismissed as it was barred by time and lacked justification for the delay.
TaxTMI 