INDIA PISTONS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner, a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts and accessories, against a show cause notice issued by the Central Government under Section 35EE (4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was dismissed.

(2.) IT was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that unlike the other statutes such as Income Tax Act, 1961, Sales Tax Act and numerous other Acts, which give suo moto revisional powers to the Revisonal authorities specified in these enactments, subject to such powers being exercised with a specified period. Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act has not prescribed any time limit. Counsel submitted that notwithstanding the absence of the specification of time limit, the Court must view that provision as procedural provision, and the time limit prescribed elsewhere in the Act should be read into that provision in order to make the power reasonable and to give finality to the orders made in appeal under Section 35A, after the lapse of a reasonable time. Counsel in this context referred to Section 11-A which prescribes the time limit of six months as the normal period of limitation for recovery of duties not levied, or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the longer period of five years provided therein, being available only to cases to which the proviso to that Section is attracted.

(3.) THE time limits specified in other Enactments for the exercise of suo moto revisional power cannot be imported into in this enactment, unless such time limits has been incorporated by reference in this Statute. THEre has been no such incorporation by reference to any other statute in Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act.