9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was as to whether the Assistant Collector who had signed and verified the appeal was duly authorised, as required under Section 35-B(2) of the Act, to do so. This question had been raised since no copy of the authorisation by the Collector had been filed. Subsequent to the said hearing the Appellate Collector had filed an extract from the file of the Collector containing notes culminating in the order of the Collector dated 22-3-1983. The said order reads as follows: Yes. As proposed please refer this case for filing up the review forthwith. Shri Sachar submits that this was the order under which the Collector authorised the filing of the appeal by the Assistant Collector. He referred us to the earlier notes of the Superintendent, rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 Vol. 28 E.L.T. 65] would support his submission. We have perused the said decision and find that the paragraph mentions that the Act clearly enjoins that it is the Collector who has to take a decision for filing the appeal but that, in the said case, the procedure seems to have been reversed since the examination started from the stage of appraiser. 4. We are unable to agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel that in the matter of taking a decision for filing an appeal on behalf of the Department, the initial perusal of the impugned order must be by the Collector only and it is only on his directions that further steps could be taken but that if the initial perusal is done by a subordinate, and on his note, the Collector makes u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector s order only on receipt of the copy thereof on 18-3-1983 from the Assistant Collector. He states in his affidavit that the matter was then looked into and the appeal was filed on 7-4-1983. The application for condonation of delay proceeds on the basis that the limitation for filing the appeal had expired on 25-10-1982, the date of the order being 26-7-1982. Shri Gujral contended that the date of receipt of the order by the Assistant Collector would be the relevant date for commencement of limitation and if the Assistant Collector had failed to communicate the order to the Collector till 18-3-1983, the said delay has not at all been explained. 7. Section 35-B(3) stipulates that the appeal should be filed within three months from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gorakhpur, the original authority. We do not see why this averment should not be accepted as true. That would mean that limitation had not commenced to run, much less came to an end, before this appeal was filed. 8. Shri Gujral in this connection pointed out that the order of the Appellate Collector contains an endorsement of communication of a copy of the order to the Collector. He submits that, in the circumstances, a copy must have been sent and, therefore, the date of receipt thereof would be the relevant date under Section 35-B(3). But we note that the Assistant Collector has affirmed on oath that no such copy was received. Accepting the said statement on oath, we hold that limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
