Per G.P. Agarwal : This Larger Bench has been constituted to consider the following question:

"Whether on facts and circumstances, the limitation prescribed under Section 35E(3) of Central Excise and Salt Act should be in accordance with Section 11A".

2. Shortly put the brief facts leading to the constitution of the Larger Bench to consider the aforesaid question are that the appellants M/s. Asian paints (India) Limited manufacture Enamels and Varnishes. Till 20.12.1978, they were assessed on the basis of invoice value. From 21.12.1978 they switched over to assessment on the basis of manufacturing cost and profit, and claimed assessment on that basis. The Superintendent approved the prices provisionally by his letter dated 20.11.78. However, this provisional assessment was finalised by the Assistant Collector on the basis of wholesale prices on 18.9.1979. Against that order of the Assistant Collector the appellants filed the appeal. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for de novo adjudication. On remand a Show Cause Notice dated 2.7.1983 proposing to reject the claims of the appellants made in the price list, namely, (1) the cost of raw material; and (2) the cost of packaging goods; (3) the cost of conversion; and (4) the manufacturing profit. After usual proceedings the Assistant Collector rejected the claims of the appellants and approved the price list. Pursuant to the order of the Assistant Collector the Superintendent finalised the assessment and issued 54 demands demanding the duty mentioned therein for the period 21.12.78 to 30.6.83. However, the appellants filed their appeal against that order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector. The Collector (Appeals) again remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for re-adjudicating the matter in the light of the judgment of the 'Supreme Court delivered in the case of Bombay Tyre International. Thereafter the Assistant Collector adjudicated the matter. While adjudicating, he allowed the claims of the appellants for deductions in respect of (1) Additional Trade discount; (2) Regular payment performance discount; (3) Product discount; and (4) Octroi, transit insurance. But rejected the claim of the appellants in respect of cash discount to the extent not actually passed on to the customers, dealers bonus and agency commission by his order dated ID. 15.10.84. The appellants filed an appeal against that part of the order of the Assistant Collector dated 15.10.84 whereby their claim, namely, cash discount not actually passed on to the customers, dealers bonus and agency commission was not allowed.

3. Meanwhile, the Collector of Central Excise under Section 351E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 directed the Assistant Collector to file an appeal against that part of the Assistant Collector dated 15.10.84 whereby he allowed the claims of the appellants in respect of (1) Additional Trade Discount; (2) Regular payment performance discount; (3) Product discount; and (4) Octroi, transit insurance. Accordingly, an appeal was filed on 2.12.85. This order of Collector of Central Excise directing the Assistant Collector to file the present appeal and thereafter filing of the appeal on 2.12.85 is the bone of contention before us on the point of limitation.

4. The Collector (Appeals) disposed of the said two appeals, that is to say, appeal filed by the appellants as well as the appeal filed by the Assistant Collector by his common order. The Collector while considering the appeal filed by the appellants held that the Collector was right in not allowing the deductions in respect of actual cash discount not passed on to the customers. He also dis-allowed the bonus and agency commission. The appellants have now come in appeal before us against that part of the order of the Collector (Appeals) whereby he has disallowed the cash discount to the extent not passed on to the customers and the bonus. The collector while dealin