2005 (2) TMI 161 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses reference application under Central Excise Act, upholding Tribunal's order. Doctrine of merger emphasized.

The court dismissed the reference application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, holding that the Tribunal's order on an unagitated issue was ... Reference to High Court - Second appeal to Tribunal Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act regarding passing orders on unagitated issues by the Tribunal.Analysis:The judgment in question pertains to a reference application under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, seeking the opinion of the court on whether the Tribunal was justified in passing an order on an issue that was not raised before it, thus reopening a matter that was already settled and not agitated before them. The court, after hearing arguments from both parties, examined the judgment of the CEGAT dated 25-2-2002. The CEGAT had found in its judgment that there was no suppression of facts by the assessee to invoke the larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The department's counsel contended that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded findings of suppression, contrary to the CEGAT's conclusion.The court elucidated the hierarchy of quasi-judicial authorities under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the CEGAT's order supersedes the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) by the doctrine of merger. The court clarified that the CEGAT, akin to a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, can delve into findings of fact and reevaluate evidence. Given the CEGAT's factual finding of no suppression, the demand was deemed time-barred, as the larger limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A did not apply. The court dismissed the contention that the Tribunal had exceeded its scope by granting relief not prayed for, emphasizing that once the demand was found to be time-barred due to the absence of suppression, pressing the demand against the assessee was untenable.In conclusion, the court rejected the reference application, deeming it devoid of merit. The judgment underscores the significance of factual findings by quasi-judicial authorities, the doctrine of merger, and the Tribunal's authority to reevaluate evidence, ultimately determining the applicability of limitation periods under the Central Excise Act.