Larger Bench competence, survival of pending excise recovery proceedings, and notice-date limitation govern the amended framework.

The Tribunal's Larger Bench procedure was held competent where conflicting Bench views required uniform resolution, and the Tribunal was not bound across India by the view of any single High Court. Proceedings validly commenced under rule 10 or rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules were held to survive substitution or omission, so a pending show cause notice could continue under the substituted framework. On limitation, the period in force on the date of issuance of the show cause notice governed the demand, not the period existing when the short levy occurred, and the revenue's claim to breathing time was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the President was competent to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal and whether the Tribunal was bound by the view of any one High Court; (ii) Whether proceedings validly initiated under rule 10 or rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules survived their substitution or omission, and whether a pending show cause notice could be pursued under the substituted provision; (iii) Whether, after the amendment, the period of limitation applicable was the one in force on the date of the short levy or the one in force on the date of the show cause notice, and whether the concept of breathing time applied.

Issue (i): Whether the President was competent to constitute a Larger Bench to resolve conflicting views of different Benches of the Tribunal and whether the Tribunal was bound by the view of any one High Court

Analysis: The statutory scheme confers power on the President to constitute Benches and empowers the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure. In the absence of an express prohibition, the Tribunal may adopt a Larger Bench procedure to secure uniformity where conflicting views exist on recurring questions. The Tribunal also is not bound, on an all-India basis, to follow the view of any single High Court in preference to other conflicting High Court decisions when deciding a matter before it.

Conclusion: The Larger Bench was validly constituted, and the Tribunal was entitled to choose the view of law it found more appropriate.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings validly initiated under rule 10 or rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules survived their substitution or omission, and whether a pending show cause notice could be pursued under the substituted provision

Analysis: The Tribunal held that proceedings commenced under a provision valid at the time of initiation do not lapse merely because the provision is later substituted or omitted. The absence of an express saving clause does not defeat continuation where the later law continues the subject-matter of demand. The rule in question was treated as a limitation-and-recovery provision operating within the statutory scheme, and the substituted provision could be applied to pending proceedings.

Conclusion: Pending proceedings survived the amendment, and the notice could be pursued under the substituted statutory framework.

Issue (iii): Whether, after the amendment, the period of limitation applicable was the one in force on the date of the short levy or the one in force on the date of the show cause notice, and whether the concept of breathing time applied

Analysis: The Tribunal rejected the plea of vested rights in favour of the revenue and held that limitation is governed by the law in force when proceedings are initiated unless a saving clause preserves the earlier period. The period available on the date of the show cause notice, not the period prevailing when the short levy occurred, governs the demand. The doctrine of breathing time was not accepted as available to the revenue in such recovery proceedings.

Conclusion: The applicable limitation was the one in force on the date of the show cause notice, and the breathing time concept was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the Tribunal's competence to use a Larger Bench and by holding that pending excise recovery proceedings continue after amendment, with limitation governed by the law in force when notice is issued.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme contains no express bar, pending proceedings under a validly existing fiscal recovery provision survive its substitution or omission, and the limitation period governing such proceedings is the period in force on the date of initiation of proceedings unless a saving clause provides otherwise.

---