2013 (12) TMI 400 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Bar of limitation - Date of order - Held that - limitation of 1 year from the date of decision of the order, is to start running from the date of signing of the decision by the concerned authority - date of signing of the order is the relevant date for the purpose of limitation. Inasmuch as the review order passed by the Commissioner is within the period of 1 year from the date of signing of the impugned order, the appeals are required to be considered as having been filed within limitation period - Following decision of Collr. of C.E., Chandigarh v. Asian Rubber and Plastic Industries 1997 (9) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of relevant date for limitation period in appeals filed by Revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved a crucial issue regarding the interpretation of the relevant date for the limitation period in appeals filed by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected all the appeals filed by the Revenue on the grounds that the review order passed by the Commissioner was beyond the period of 1 year from the date of the original order. The key question at hand was whether the date of passing of the order in the file or the date of signing of the order should be considered as the relevant date for the purpose of limitation.

The Tribunal analyzed previous cases to determine the relevant date for the limitation period. Referring to the case of Collr. of C.E., Chandigarh v. Asian Rubber and Plastic Industries and CCE v. Shaw Wallace Gelatine, it was established that the date of signing of the order is crucial for determining the limitation period. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation of 1 year from the date of the decision of the order starts running from the date of signing of the decision by the concerned authority.

Based on the precedent and legal interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the date of signing of the order is indeed the relevant date for the purpose of limitation. Since the review order passed by the Commissioner was within the period of 1 year from the date of signing of the original order, the appeals were considered to have been filed within the limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit.

In summary, the judgment clarified the significance of the date of signing of the order in determining the limitation period for appeals. By following established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal provided a clear interpretation that favored the Revenue in this case, leading to the setting aside of the previous order and a remand for further consideration on merit.