1996 (9) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 25-7-1994 passed by the Tribunal which they wanted to be referred to the High Court for their advice. On going through the application and on a preliminary hearing of the matter, the Bench found that the question of limitation had in fact been raised during the hearing of the appeal which did not find a mention in the order. Accordingly the Bench took the view that the Reference Application should be treated instead as an application for rectification of mistake in the order passed. The matter was, therefore, heard as a Rectification Application when Shrimati Archana Wadhwa appeared for the applicants and Shri J. Singh for the respondent Collector. 2. The application for rectification of the order arises from the fact that the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned Departmental Representative, Shri J. Singh. He supported the order. 5. We have considered the submission about limitation and the case law cited in support thereof. It is contended that the Department came to know about the alleged non-accountal of the crown corks in 1986 whereas the show cause notice was issued in 1989. On this account it is not possible to accept the plea that the notice was time-barred. The show cause notice levelled the charge of removal of aerated water bottles corresponding to the number of crown corks issued but not accounted for. Wilful and intentional suppression of production and evasion of duty have been alleged. There is nothing in the language of Section 11A(1) proviso or the definition of the t....