9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (5) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shortly put the brief facts leading to the present applications are that the Revenue filed 30 appeals against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 169 to 178, 187 to 195 and 179 to 186/CE/JPR/81 dated 29-10-1981 passed by the Collector (Appeals). Initially, three appeals were filed by the Revenue. Although, 24 Supplementary Appeals were required to be filed by the Revenue, in accordance with the practice prevailing in this Tribunal, they actually filed 27 Supplementary Appeals subsequently. Thus, making the total number of appeals to 30. All these appeals were heard together. The Tribunal vide its Order No. E/81 to 107/1990-D, dated 12-2-1990 rejected all these appeals on the ground of limitation alone without going into the merits of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise, Rajkot v. Simco Industries, Bhavnagar. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 3. Since we are dismissing all these appeals on the ground of limitation, we are not discussing the merits of the cases although Shri Chakraborty, learned DR has reiterated the grounds stated in the appeals." 3. Now the Revenue has filed these identically worded applications for rectification of the alleged mistake in the said Order No. E/81 to 107/1990-D, dated 12-2-1990 stating that this Tribunal has made a mistake in taking the date 29-10-1981 as the date of Order-in-Appeal and computing period of limitation from this date. 4. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue, Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned SDR, submitted that though the Collector (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at is to say within six months) and since in the instant case the review Show Cause Notice demanding Central Excise duty was issued on 8-10-1982, it was admittedly time-barred when counted from the date of the Order-in-Appeal, that is to say, 29-10-1981. Consequently, this Tribunal rightly rejected the demand as time-barred and cited the case of Collector of C. Ex. v. M.M. Rubber Co., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co., supra, the Apex Court was concerned with the issue as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of calculation of the period of one year provided under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In paragraphs 9, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation for a competent authority to make an order the date of exercise of that power and in the case of exercise of suo motu power over the subordinate authorities orders, the date on which such power was exercised by making an order are the relevant dates for determining the limitation. The ratio of this distinction may also be founded on the principle that the Government is bound by the proceedings of its officers but persons affected are not concluded by the decision. Thus, the contention of the Revenue in the present applications that the impugned Order-in-Appeal though dated 29-10-1981 was despatched only on or after 28-5-1982 and, therefore, the limitation should be counted from 28-5-1982, that is to say, from the date of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
