Substantial question of law and limitation under Central Excise rules determined the challenge to the demand.

After substitution of section 35G of the Central Excise Act, a High Court proceeding had to be treated as an appeal involving a substantial question of law, not as a reference on a simple question of law; the correct procedural route was therefore an appeal under the amended provision. On limitation, the extended period under section 11A could not be invoked merely on an allegation of suppression where the Tribunal had found as a fact that the department knew of the manufacturing activity and had been informed by the assessee. In the absence of perversity or legal error in that finding, the demand was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceeding before the High Court was maintainable as a reference under the unamended section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or was required to be treated as an appeal under the substituted provision; and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether the proceeding before the High Court was maintainable as a reference under the unamended section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or was required to be treated as an appeal under the substituted provision.

Analysis: The statutory scheme had changed by the time the Tribunal passed its order. After substitution of section 35G by the Finance Act, 2003, the remedy was an appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law, not a reference on a simple question of law. The High Court was required to formulate the substantial question itself. The reference, therefore, did not conform to the governing provision.

Conclusion: The proceeding could not validly be treated as a reference under the old provision; the correct remedy was an appeal under the substituted section 35G.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be invoked on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found, as a matter of fact, that the department had knowledge of the manufacturing activity and that information had been furnished by the appellant, including the letter dated 22 January 1991. Whether the facts amounted to suppression was essentially factual and did not by itself raise a substantial question of law. In the absence of perversity or legal error in the Tribunal's finding, the precondition for invoking the extended period was not established, and the show cause notice issued in March 1994 was beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department and the demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable, the assessee succeeded on both maintainability and limitation, and the demand could not be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: After substitution of section 35G, the High Court must deal with an appeal on a substantial question of law, and a factual finding on suppression, unless shown to be perverse or legally flawed, cannot by itself justify invocation of the extended period of limitation under section 11A.

---