IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.E.A. No. 35 of 2007 Date of decision: April 20, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh ....Appellant Versus M/s Hari Concast (P) Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel, Government of India (Indirect Taxes), for the appellant. Mr. Sudeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenging order dated 3.8.2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). It is conceded position that proceedings against the respondent- assessee for imposing penalty were initiated after the expiry of period of five years. Although there is no statutory period of limitation yet reasonable period of limitation for initiating proceedings is five years. In that regard C.E.A. No. 35 of 2007 reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363. It has been held that if no provision is made regarding period of limitation for exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, then maximum period of five years is regarded as reasonable period. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal does not warrant admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) April 20, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2