M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)

1. In this Appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs in terms of Sec. 35 (as it read at the relevant time), of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to Sec. 35(F) of the Act, the questions that arise for consideration are-

(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, as it read at the relevant time, was applicable to the issue of the show-cause notice for recovery of duty ? If not, was the show-cause notice dated 5-9-1980 barred by limitation ?

(b) Was the levy of penalty under Rule 173-Q sustainable ?

(c) Did the show-cause notice dated 5-9-1980 abate in consequence of the repeal of Rule 10 and its re-enactment as Sec. 11 of the Act with effect from 17-11-1980 without providing for any saving of pending proceedings ?

(d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there has been a "manufacture" of the pistons in question, and if so, the process carried out by the Appellant came within the scope of Rule 173-H of the Rules ?

2. The material facts are not in controversy and can briefly be s