1994 (9) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for reference to the High Court.
2. Whether assessment under Rule 173-I necessitates a show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 11A.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Collector of Central Excise sought reference to the High Court under Section 35G(1) based on issues of law arising from previous orders. The Tribunal rejected the department's contention, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Central Excise v. Kosan Metal Products, which emphasized the importance of issuing show cause notices within the prescribed time limit.
2. The appellant raised the question of whether assessment under Rule 173-I requires a separate show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 11A. The ld. SDR argued that previous judgments, such as Swan Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector, supported the view that notice under Section 11A may not be necessary in certain assessment scenarios. The Respondents, represented by the ld. C.A., maintained that the Tribunal correctly applied the Supreme Court's judgment in Kosan Metal Products, indicating no need for a reference to the High Court.
3. The factual background revealed that the Respondents' RT-12 returns were assessed, leading to demands for duty payment. The Respondents contested the show cause notices, alleging lack of hearing before approval of their classification list. Various judicial decisions, including those by the Kerala High Court and different Tribunals, highlighted the necessity of issuing show cause notices within the stipulated period under Section 11A.
4. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's stance in Kosan Metal Products, emphasizing the importance of timely show cause notices. The Bombay High Court's judgment in Swan Mills Ltd. v. Union of India was distinguished due to differing factual contexts. The ERB's decision in Rasoi Ltd. v. Collector was examined, but it did not contradict the Tribunal's decision based on the Supreme Court's judgment.
5. The ERB's decision was found to be distinguishable, as it involved different factual elements compared to the current case. The assessment in question did not align with the RT-12 returns, leading to a denial of the claim made by the Respondents. The Tribunal concluded that the Supreme Court's ruling in Kosan Metal Products, followed in previous decisions, did not necessitate a reference to the High Court.
6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for reference, maintaining the decision based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.