Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1991 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1991 (9) TMI 71 - SC - Central Excise


  1. 2015 (9) TMI 1737 - SC
  2. 2015 (7) TMI 893 - SC
  3. 2012 (7) TMI 383 - SC
  4. 2010 (4) TMI 1031 - SC
  5. 2007 (7) TMI 629 - SC
  6. 2025 (3) TMI 880 - HC
  7. 2025 (3) TMI 963 - HC
  8. 2025 (3) TMI 727 - HC
  9. 2025 (3) TMI 111 - HC
  10. 2024 (9) TMI 1282 - HC
  11. 2024 (2) TMI 1522 - HC
  12. 2024 (2) TMI 624 - HC
  13. 2023 (7) TMI 1126 - HC
  14. 2022 (9) TMI 1384 - HC
  15. 2022 (2) TMI 602 - HC
  16. 2019 (9) TMI 1717 - HC
  17. 2018 (5) TMI 639 - HC
  18. 2018 (3) TMI 802 - HC
  19. 2017 (5) TMI 1543 - HC
  20. 2016 (10) TMI 778 - HC
  21. 2016 (5) TMI 1151 - HC
  22. 2015 (9) TMI 1081 - HC
  23. 2015 (11) TMI 1015 - HC
  24. 2014 (5) TMI 820 - HC
  25. 2014 (4) TMI 802 - HC
  26. 2013 (11) TMI 19 - HC
  27. 2013 (11) TMI 630 - HC
  28. 2013 (5) TMI 482 - HC
  29. 2012 (3) TMI 261 - HC
  30. 2011 (9) TMI 611 - HC
  31. 2010 (6) TMI 195 - HC
  32. 2008 (7) TMI 424 - HC
  33. 1999 (7) TMI 89 - HC
  34. 2024 (3) TMI 590 - AT
  35. 2024 (1) TMI 890 - AT
  36. 2023 (10) TMI 1468 - AT
  37. 2023 (1) TMI 342 - AT
  38. 2021 (2) TMI 899 - AT
  39. 2019 (10) TMI 1331 - AT
  40. 2019 (5) TMI 80 - AT
  41. 2019 (4) TMI 1553 - AT
  42. 2018 (8) TMI 333 - AT
  43. 2017 (12) TMI 377 - AT
  44. 2017 (5) TMI 140 - AT
  45. 2017 (8) TMI 669 - AT
  46. 2016 (9) TMI 423 - AT
  47. 2016 (12) TMI 1225 - AT
  48. 2016 (6) TMI 514 - AT
  49. 2016 (2) TMI 142 - AT
  50. 2013 (11) TMI 1236 - AT
  51. 2013 (4) TMI 698 - AT
  52. 2014 (1) TMI 107 - AT
  53. 2012 (11) TMI 262 - AT
  54. 2012 (10) TMI 196 - AT
  55. 2013 (9) TMI 217 - AT
  56. 2013 (7) TMI 79 - AT
  57. 2012 (7) TMI 31 - AT
  58. 2012 (7) TMI 602 - AT
  59. 2011 (8) TMI 898 - AT
  60. 2013 (8) TMI 726 - AT
  61. 2013 (12) TMI 400 - AT
  62. 2010 (8) TMI 50 - AT
  63. 2010 (4) TMI 402 - AT
  64. 2008 (10) TMI 397 - AT
  65. 2008 (9) TMI 35 - AT
  66. 2007 (8) TMI 380 - AT
  67. 2005 (5) TMI 157 - AT
  68. 2004 (12) TMI 164 - AT
  69. 2004 (6) TMI 60 - AT
  70. 2002 (4) TMI 142 - AT
  71. 1998 (8) TMI 245 - AT
  72. 2013 (7) TMI 242 - CGOVT
Issues Involved:
1. Relevant date for the purpose of calculation of the period of one year under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of the term "date of the decision or order" in the context of limitation periods.
3. Distinction between the rights of aggrieved parties and the powers of authorities under statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Relevant Date for Calculation of the Period of One Year Under Section 35E(3):

The core legal question is determining the relevant date for calculating the one-year period under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondent argued that the relevant date should be the date when the adjudicating authority passed the order (28-11-1984) rather than when it was received by the respondent (21-12-1984). The Tribunal accepted this contention, leading to the appeal being considered out of time. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the period of one year should be calculated from the date the order was passed, not from the date of its communication to the respondent.

2. Interpretation of "Date of the Decision or Order":

The judgment delves into the interpretation of the phrase "date of the decision or order" in various contexts. The court referred to several precedents, such as Annamalai Chett. v. Col. J.G. Cloete and Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, which established that for an aggrieved party, the limitation period begins from the date of communication of the order. However, for authorities exercising suo motu powers, the limitation period starts from the date the order is made. The court emphasized that the date of the order is when it is signed and finalized, not when it is communicated.

3. Distinction Between Rights of Aggrieved Parties and Powers of Authorities:

The judgment distinguishes between the rights of aggrieved parties and the powers of authorities under statutory provisions. For aggrieved parties seeking remedies, the limitation period starts from the date of communication of the order. Conversely, for authorities exercising powers, such as the Board under Section 35E, the limitation period starts from the date the order is passed. This distinction is based on the principle that while the government is bound by the proceedings of its officers, the affected parties are not concluded by the decision until they are made aware of it. The court highlighted that the Board's power under Section 35E is a supervisory power, not akin to the right of appeal by an aggrieved party.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the period of one year under Section 35E(3) should be interpreted literally, starting from the date the order is passed. The Board's direction was beyond the prescribed limitation period and thus invalid. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the application was out of time.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates