SREERANGA CHETTIAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a trader. He carries on the business in tobacco. Excise duty and penalty were imposed on him, under the Central Excises & Salt Act, for violating the Central Excise Rules. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who reduced the penalty. The further revision filed before the Central Government was later converted into an appeal and disposed of by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras. The Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 18-8-1983, reduced the penalty to Rs.500/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure-D) under S.35-G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, for referring certain questions of law for the decision of this Court. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 2-4-1984, held that no point of law has been specifically posed or formulated by the petitioner; nor could the Tribunal find out any such point in the long statement and dismissed the reference application. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition under S.35-G(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

(2.) We heard counsel. It was argued that the Appellate Tribunal could have spelt out or culled out a point of law from the detailed statement (five pages) submitted by the petitioner - Annexure-D. Counsel for the petitioner very forcefully pressed the point that the reference application should not have been thrown out on a technical or flimsy ground that the questions of law were not formulated in the application filed under S.35-G(1) of the Act. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue Mr. Abul Hassan, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that under S.35-G(1) of the Act the petitioner was bound to file an application in the prescribed form. R.218 of the. Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Form No.E-A6 behoves the petitioner to pointedly formulate the questions of law which the Tribunal is required to refer to this Court under column 8 and it is those questions, formulated in column 8, the petitioner/applicant can require the Tribunal to refer to this Court under S.35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as could be seen by column 9 in Form No.E.A.6. This is a matter of substance. The questions of law .to be referred to this Court are not formulated at all. There is no occasion for the Tribunal to consider the matter, as required by the Act. In such circumstances, this Court cannot also compell or direct the Tribunal to refer the questions, which have been formulated for the first time in the petition filed in this court, in Para.24.

(3.) We are of the view that the plea of the Revenue should succeed. S.35-G(1) and (3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, R.218(1) and (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Form No.E.A.6 are relevant to settle the controversy in this case. They are as follows: