1990 (7) TMI 117 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Law of limitation regarding central excise levy.
2. Applicability of different articles of the Limitation Act.
3. Determination of cause of action in relation to the levy of duty.
4. Effect of superior decisions on the computation of limitation periods.
5. Merger of orders and its impact on cause of action.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in question involved a dispute regarding the law of limitation concerning the levy of central excise duty. The plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the levy was unauthorized was dismissed due to being time-barred as per the court's findings.

2. The court examined the relevant articles of the Limitation Act, specifically Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which governs suits for obtaining declarations. The court also discussed the differences between Article 113 of the 1963 Act and Article 120 of the 1908 Act, emphasizing the starting point of the limitation period.

3. The determination of the cause of action was crucial in this case. The court analyzed when the right to sue first accrued, considering the date of the demand for payment and the subsequent actions by the authorities in relation to the levy of duty. The court emphasized the importance of identifying the initial cause of action.

4. The judgment delved into the impact of superior decisions on the computation of limitation periods. It highlighted that in cases where the original order merges into an appellate or revisional order, the limitation period is calculated from the date of the ultimate order, as established by precedents like Raghubir Jha v. State of Bihar.

5. The concept of merger of orders and its effect on cause of action were also discussed. The court differentiated situations where an appeal is not entertained due to being time-barred, emphasizing that in such cases, the theory of merger does not apply. The judgment referenced S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P. to support this principle.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decision that the plaintiff's suit, filed beyond three years from the date of the demand for payment, was time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The judgment dismissed the appeal, citing the reasons discussed above and without imposing any costs on either party.