2002 (10) TMI 385

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order of review was passed after one year from the date of the adjudication order. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority signed the order on 29-10-97. Therefore, the date of order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion order was passed on 18-10-96 which was issued on 28-10-96. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue and it is also cleared by the copy of the order filed with this appeal. The review order was passed on 31-10-97. This fact is also admitted by the Revenue. Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise can call for the record of any proceedings in wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder is run from the date of signing of the decision of the order by the concerned authorities. In view of the above provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act and the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the provisions of limitation Act as pleaded in the present appeal are not applicable in respect of order passed under 35E of the Act. As the Review order is passed beyond the period of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X