1989 (5) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of limitation period for filing an appeal based on the date of communication of the impugned order.
2. Interpretation of Sections 35A(5) and 35B(3) regarding the communication of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) to the concerned Collector of Central Excise.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, challenging the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The main contention revolved around the calculation of the limitation period for filing the appeal. The respondent argued that the communication of the impugned order was made on 15-12-1986, thus making the appeal filed on 11th May, 1987, time-barred. Reference was made to the judgment in Harikishan v. The State of Maharashtra and others and a Tribunal decision in C.C. E. Bombay v. M/s. S.B. Plastic Industries to support this argument.

2. On the other hand, the appellant contended that the appeal was within the stipulated time frame. The argument was based on the interpretation of Sections 35A(5) and 35B(3), suggesting that communication by the Collector (Appeals) to the Collector of Central Excise was the relevant factor. The appellant cited a Tribunal judgment in M-131/1988-D (CCE Bhubaneshwar v. M/s. Orissa Textile Mills Ltd.) to support this interpretation. It was emphasized that the communication took place on 17-3-1987, as indicated in EA 3 Form.

3. After considering the arguments and reviewing the facts presented, the Tribunal examined an affidavit filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. The affidavit detailed the timeline of the communication of the impugned order and the subsequent actions taken by the Collector's office. It was revealed that there was a delay in receiving the order-in-appeal due to administrative processes, as confirmed by the correspondence between the offices involved.

4. The affidavit was supported by various documents, including photocopies of relevant records and correspondence between the offices. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, clarified the sequence of events leading to the receipt of the impugned order, highlighting the delays in the process.

5. Correspondence from the Collector (Appeals) further corroborated the timeline of events, indicating the dispatch of the order-in-appeal and subsequent follow-ups to ensure its receipt by the concerned authorities. The Tribunal, after reviewing the affidavit and connected correspondence, concluded that there was no delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised regarding the limitation period was overruled.