Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. vs Cce, Chandigarh on 2 February, 2001
ORDER
Lajja Ram
1. In this reference application, the applicants, M/s. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. with reference to the Tribunal's Final Order dated 17.7.98 has prayed that the following questions of law be referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh:-
(i) Whether the appeal could be decided on merits in the absence of the counsel on 1.7.98 for the applicant/appellant and without giving notice of hearing to the appellant?
(ii) Whether the applicant has evaded the payment of excise duty on account of shortages worked out by the officers of Central Excise (Prev.), Chandigarh on their visit on 2.12.91 and subsequently ignoring the submissions putforth by the appellant?
(iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings given by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh to the extent of shortages of the assemblies?
(iv) Whether the findings of the Hon'ble Tribunal without considering the explanation and evidence produced can be the valid basis for rejecting the application irrespective of shortages of the assemblies?
2. The reference application was received in the Registry on 4.1.99.
3. Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the time limit for filing the reference application should be counted from 28th October, 1998 when the Hon'ble High Court had passed the following order that the petitioner may if so advised seek a reference in accordance with law against the order of the Tribunal. The ld. Advocate also submitted that the certain copy was received by the applicants only on 9.11.98.
4. I find that the Hon'ble High Court has not extended the time limit within which the reference application is to be filed. The reference application was required to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the order and the Tribunal could extend the time limit only by further 30 days. As the reference application was received beyond the time prescribed, it is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
5. Order dictated & pronounced in the Open Court on 2.2.2001.