Decided on September 20,1991



K.Sankararaman, - (1.) THE Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I Collectorate has filed this Miscellaneous Application requesting for condonation of delay in filing the Reference Application arising from order of this Tribunal issued under No.l78/Cal/90-178 dated 30.4.1990. It has been stated in the application that the notice of the order was served on him on 4.6.1990. THE Reference Application has been received in the Tribunal on 7th February, 1991, which is long after the expiry of the prescribed period of 60 days mentioned under 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 7944, and also beyond the further period of 30 days which the Tribunal has the discretion to condone.
(2.) Since there is no provision to entertain any Reference Application beyond the total period of 90 days, this application cannot be considered and is dismissed. Consequentially, the Reference Application itself is dismissed as time barred. Before parting with the case, I would however like to observe that the Reference Application does not disclose the questions of law which have arisen from the Order of the Tribunal, which will required to be referred to the High Court for a ruling. It is also seen that the case laws cited in the Reference Application actually do not support the arguments raised in the Application. The cases are also distinguishable. The Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Union Carbide related to price list which had been approved by the department and which was sought to be reviewed during its validity by directing the assessee to file another price list. It was not a case of demand for duty. In the Supreme Court decision relied on by the Collector the demand issued by the department was actually upheld and no estoppel was allowed to be operated. This decision of the Supreme Court was actually referred to by them in their subsequent decision in Mis Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1988 (19) ECR 449 (SC) : ECR C 1311 SC which was relied upon and cited while passing the order by this Bench. The Supreme Court had clearly held that there can be no estoppel against the law and the claim raised being based on the legal effect of a provision of law the contention against it must be rejected. // appears that the Reference Application has been prepared without appreciating the legal position as spelt out in the decision which was relied upon by this Bench while passing the order. Pronounced in the open Court. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.