1992 (5) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of alleged mistake in the CEGAT Order No. E/81 to 107/1990-D regarding the date of the Order-in-Appeal and the computation of the period of limitation.
2. Interpretation of the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed 30 appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), dated 29-10-1981. The Tribunal rejected these appeals on the ground of limitation alone, as the review Show Cause Notices were issued after the six-month time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Tribunal cited various cases to support its decision and dismissed the appeals based on the limitation issue without delving into the merits of the cases.

2. The Revenue subsequently filed applications seeking rectification of the alleged mistake in the Order No. E/81 to 107/1990-D, claiming that the date of the Order-in-Appeal should be considered as the despatch date, which was on or after 28-5-1982, rather than the date of the Order itself, 29-10-1981. The Revenue argued that the review Show Cause Notices issued on 8-10-1982 were within the six-month limitation period from the despatch date. However, the Respondents contended that there was no mistake in the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the importance of the date of the Order-in-Appeal for calculating the limitation period under Section 11A.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co., where the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation was discussed. The Tribunal highlighted that the date of communication of the decision or order appealed against is crucial for the limitation period, rather than the despatch date. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument, stating that the limitation should be counted from the date of the Order-in-Appeal, in line with the principles outlined by the Apex Court. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in its original order and dismissed the applications filed by the Revenue for rectification, as they lacked merit.