Maintainability and limitation in central excise appeals: unraised grounds cannot be introduced later, and a restoration prayer preserves limitation.

A ground not urged before the Tribunal cannot be raised for the first time in further appeal, and the Revenue's maintainability objection failed on that basis. The Court also noted that Rule 3(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 permits one Central Excise Officer to exercise the powers of another subordinate officer, supporting the Chief Commissioner's competence to file the appeal. On limitation, a prayer to restore the original adjudication order invoking the extended period under Section 11A was held sufficient to preserve the limitation issue, so the objection that no demand survived was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable in the absence of a prior formation of opinion by the Commissioner under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal failed to raise the limitation issue decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), so that no demand survived.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable in the absence of a prior formation of opinion by the Commissioner under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The objection regarding mandatory formation of opinion was not raised before the Tribunal. A plea not urged before the Tribunal cannot be entertained for the first time in appeal. The Court also relied on Rule 3(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, under which a Central Excise Officer may exercise the powers and discharge the duties of another subordinate officer. On that basis, the Chief Commissioner was held competent to file the appeal.

Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed and the issue was answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal failed to raise the limitation issue decided by the Commissioner (Appeals), so that no demand survived.

Analysis: The prayer in the Revenue's appeal sought restoration of the original adjudication order, which had invoked the larger period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That prayer was sufficient to encompass the limitation aspect. The Court therefore held that the limitation question was not omitted from the Revenue's challenge before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeal was not sustainable, and the Tribunal's order was affirmed with the Revenue succeeding on the substantial questions decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A ground not raised before the Tribunal cannot be urged for the first time in further appeal, and a prayer to restore an order invoking the extended period is sufficient to preserve the limitation issue.

---