https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167197 Tribunal jurisdiction over a transferred revision application under the Produce Cess Act was supported by the majority view, which treated the Tribunal as competent despite the Act's separate appellate and revisional scheme; one member dissented, maintaining that revisional jurisdiction remained with the Central Government. On merits, oil produced from ground nuts attracted cess obligations, and failure to furnish required particulars and monthly returns could not be excused by ignorance of law or the delayed appointment of a Collector. Removal without excise authorities' knowledge fell under Rule 9 rather than Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, defeating the limitation plea. The cess demand and penalty were sustained. 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 Tribunal jurisdiction over a transferred revision application under the Produce Cess Act was supported by the majority view, which treated the Tribunal as competent despite the Act's separate appellate and revisional scheme; one member dissented, maintaining that revisional jurisdiction remained with the Central Government. On merits, oil produced from ground nuts attracted cess obligations, and failure to furnish required particulars and monthly returns could not be excused by ignorance of law or the delayed appointment of a Collector. Removal without excise authorities' knowledge fell under Rule 9 rather than Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, defeating the limitation plea. The cess demand and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167197