1985 (8) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Statutory Limitations Upheld: Enforcement of Differential Duty Demands Restricted to Preceding 6 Months

KAIPULLY MATCH INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN

KAIPULLY MATCH INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 520 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Interpretation of the provisions under Clause 52 of the Finance Bill, 1982 concerning duties of excise on matches.2. Determination of the applicability of the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excises and Salt Act to the enforcement of demands.3. Consideration of judgments by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court regarding retrospective legislation under the Finance Act, 1982.4. Application of the principles established in the above judgments to the present appeals.Analysis:1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT involved the interpretation of Clause 52 of the Finance Bill, 1982, which deemed certain provisions to prevail over notifications issued between specific dates concerning duties of excise on matches. Show Cause Notices were issued to the appellants based on these provisions, resulting in demands for payment of differential duty. The lower authorities confirmed these demands, leading to the present appeals challenging the orders.2. The main contention raised was whether the demands could be enforced without regard to the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excises and Salt Act. The appellants argued that regardless of the retrospective application under Section 52 of the Finance Bill, the demands could only be enforced within the limitation period. This issue of limitation had been raised before the lower authorities and was a crucial aspect of the present appeals.3. Reference was made to judgments by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, specifically in cases related to retrospective legislation under the Finance Act, 1982. These judgments emphasized that demands must be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules in force at the relevant time, taking into account the limitations prescribed. The decisions highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory limitations and not extending demands arbitrarily.4. The Appellate Tribunal, considering the precedents set by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court, held that the department was bound by the period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Accordingly, the enforcement of demands could only extend to the period specified in Section 11A, limited to six months preceding the dates of the Show Cause Notices. The appeals were allowed based on this interpretation, granting relief to the appellants in line with the principles established by the aforementioned judgments.