9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred. 3. Arguing on these Misc. Applications the ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that under Section 35E(1) the Board can review the order of the Collector of Central Excise but the same has to be done within one year under Section 35E(1) from the date of the decision or the order. In this case the adjudication order was issued on 16-3-1988 by Collector of Central Excise, Pune while it was attested by his Superintendent on 14-3-1988 and was stencilled on 10-3-1988. The Collector of Central Excise, therefore, must have signed the order prior to 14-3-1988. Since the review order issued by the Board is signed on 15-3-1989 and also issued on that date, the decision was taken after more than one year and, therefore, the Review orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the order and, therefore, the appeals are within time. 5. We have heard both sides. Since in the impugned order the Collector had not put the date below his signature we gave number of opportunities to the Revenue to produce original records for arriving at a decision on maintainability of the appeals. On 5-12-1995 a detailed order was passed and copy of this order-sheet was given dasti to both sides to obtain comments and original records on the next date of hearing. The matter was again adjourned on 4-1-1996. The Ld. DR produced a telex message to seek adjournment by a fortnight so that records may be produced. The case was again adjourned to 7-2-1996 to enable the Ld. DR to seek the original records. We note that Ld. DR fairly con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of the decision or order is to run from the date of signing of the decision or order by the concerned authority. In that case a plea had been pressed by the appellants/Revenue that mere writing an order in file kept in the office is no order in the eye of law in the sense of affecting the rights of the parties for whom the order is meant and that though the order of the adjudicating authority was made on 28-11-1994 a copy of the same was sent to the respondents only on 21-12-1984 and received by them on the very day and that therefore the limitation would start only at the earliest from 21-12-1984. Negativing the contention the Apex Court distinguished two situations holding that limitation of one year from the date of the decision or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
