Limitation under a different excise provision may be a referable question of law where the rule itself is silent on time limits.

Where Rule 57P did not itself prescribe any limitation period, the Tribunal treated the question whether the Section 11A limitation could be imported into the money credit scheme as a substantial question of law. Relying on the Supreme Court's view that the then existing Rule 57-I contained no limitation, it held that the absence of direct High Court or Supreme Court authority on Rule 57P made the issue fit for reference. The matter was therefore referred to the jurisdictional High Court for opinion on the limitation issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 can be imported into the money credit scheme under Rule 57P of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's ruling that the then existing Rule 57-I did not prescribe any period of limitation and that, in the absence of any decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court on Rule 57P, the question whether a limitation period could be read into that rule raised a substantial question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: The question was referred to the jurisdictional High Court for its opinion.

Final Conclusion: The reference application succeeded only to the extent of the first question, and the matter was sent to the High Court for determination of the limitation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory rule does not itself prescribe a limitation period, the question whether the limitation in another provision can be imported into it may constitute a referable question of law.

---