2013 (12) TMI 400

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date for the purpose of limitation. Inasmuch as the review order passed by the Commissioner is within the period of 1 year from the date of signing of the impugned order, the appeals are required to be considered as having been filed within limitation period - Following decision of Collr. of C.E., Chandigarh v. Asian Rubber and Plastic Industries [1997 (9) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] - Decided in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order, the same is barred by limitation. He, accordingly, rejected all the appeals filed by the Revenue. 2. We find that for considering the period of 1 year, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the date of passing of the order in the file. If the date of signing of Order-in-Original is taken into account, the review order in all the cases is within the limitation period. 3. As such, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was held that the limitation of 1 year from the date of decision of the order, is to start running from the date of signing of the decision by the concerned authority. 5. As such, we are of the view that the date of signing of the order is the relevant date for the purpose of limitation. Inasmuch as the review order passed by the Commissioner is within the period of 1 year from the date of sig .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X