9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal on 4-3-1983. In application for condonation of delay dated 9-3-1983 signed by Shri N.V. Jotwani, Assistant Collector (Legal) it is urged that before commencement of Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal on 11-10-1982 the matter and implication of revenue was under study. This caused the delay and delay in filing appeal may be condoned. In another miscellaneous petition dated 7-10-1986 it is, inter alia, urged that after receipt of the impugned order dated 18-3-1982 by Collector of Central Excise, Baroda under whose charge the matter fell at the relevant time i.e. till 1-9-1983, the Collector called for A.C s comments on 8-4-1982. The Assistant Collector was reminded and he had by his letter dated 2-4-1982 called for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the application Shri Sundar Rajan did not rely on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. He, however, placed relience on a decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals Final Order Nos. 378 379/86-C, dated 2-7-1986. Relying on the same he submitted that earlier before the Tribunal was set up the Revenue had the remedy of exercise of revisionary power by the Government for which limitation was one year. In fact, the appellant-Collector had taken steps so that Government could exercise this power. However, in the meanwhile, law was amended and the Tribunal set up and instead of the earlier remedy of revision, right of appeal conferred. Therefore, the appellant in the matter of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Right of appeal to the Revenue was conferred for the first time only on 11-10-1982 and earlier there was the remedy of revision available to the Revenue. The two, right of appeal and remedy of revision, are well understood to be different in scope nature and content. Merely because earlier the Revenue had remedy of revision for which the limitation of one year was available would not mean that they should in absence of provision to that effect in law have the same limitation particularly when the provision itself is clear that limitation would be three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. 8. As for Shri Sundar Rajan s argument that earlier for revision before amendment of the Act there was limitation of one year an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
