2019 (4) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Legal for the respondents in all appeals. P.C.: These appeals under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the said Act") were filed by the appellant-Revenue challenging a common order dated 27th August 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). The common impugned order dated 27th August 2004, inter alia, disposed of these seven appeals. These appeals were filed before the Nagpur Bench of this Court in 2005 and were allotted Nos.3/2005, 5/2005, 6/2005, 7/2005, 8/2005, 11/2005, and 14/2005. 2. These appeals as filed by the Revenue did not contain any proposed substantial question of law. Thus, on 6th September 2007, the Court directed the appellant to furnish ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r hearing the parties admitted the seven appeals only on the following identical substantial question of law: "Whether interpretation of provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in the light of Section 6 of General Clauses Act by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is proper or not? 4. Thereafter, all these appeals were transferred from the Nagpur Bench of this Court to the Principal Seat at Bombay. Consequently, the seven appeals have now been allotted new appeal numbers by the Registry at Bombay. 5. At the very outset, Mr.Sridharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the admitted substantial question of law is academic. This, in view of the fact that the impugn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the other questions which were raised at the time of admission of appeals should also be reconsidered in terms of proviso to Section 35G(4) of the said Act. 7. In the facts of these cases, we are of the view that before the Court, at the time of admission, the questions as proposed by the Revenue did not raise any issue with regard to demand being barred by limitation. Thus, that issue stands concluded in favour of the respondent even as per the Revenue. So far as other questions which are now being raised are the same which were subject of consideration by the coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of admission. At that time, the appeals were admitted only on one issue by reframing the question of law as reproduced hereinabove. Th....