https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167197 The article addresses the Tribunal's competence to hear a transferred revision under the Produce Cess Act, 1966, noting the majority view that the Tribunal could dispose of the matter, while one member held that revisional jurisdiction remained with the Central Government under Section 10(4). It also explains that producers of oil from groundnuts were found non-compliant with the statutory duty to furnish particulars and monthly returns, and that ignorance of law and delayed filing after notice did not excuse default. The demand of cess and penalty was treated as valid, and the limitation objection failed because the removal was without excise knowledge and fell within Rule 9 rather than Rule 10. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:43:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167197 The article addresses the Tribunal's competence to hear a transferred revision under the Produce Cess Act, 1966, noting the majority view that the Tribunal could dispose of the matter, while one member held that revisional jurisdiction remained with the Central Government under Section 10(4). It also explains that producers of oil from groundnuts were found non-compliant with the statutory duty to furnish particulars and monthly returns, and that ignorance of law and delayed filing after notice did not excuse default. The demand of cess and penalty was treated as valid, and the limitation objection failed because the removal was without excise knowledge and fell within Rule 9 rather than Rule 10. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167197