Second penalty on same facts raises a referable question of law where separate transactions are penalised under excise law.

In proceedings under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a referable question of law arises where penalties imposed through separate adjudication orders are said to relate to distinct transactions but are challenged as a second penalty on the same facts. The High Court treated that controversy as requiring judicial opinion because the effect of multiple penalties on independent transactions had to be examined to determine whether they were truly successive penalties on identical facts. The Tribunal was therefore directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the question to the High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the following question of law arose from the Tribunal's order for reference to the High Court: whether penalties imposed in relation to separate and independent transactions could be treated as a second penalty on the same facts.

Analysis: The petition was examined under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On a perusal of the Tribunal's order, the Court found that the controversy relating to penalties imposed through separate adjudication orders on distinct transactions gave rise to a referable question of law. The Court accepted that the issue whether such penalties amounted to a second penalty on the same facts required the opinion of the High Court.

Conclusion: The question of law was held to arise for reference, and the Tribunal was directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer that question to the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The reference petition succeeded to the extent that the identified question of law was ordered to be referred for decision.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the controversy turns on whether penalties imposed in respect of separate transactions amount to a second penalty on the same facts, the matter raises a referable question of law.

---