9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein or not?" 3. In the present case short facts relevant and undisputed are that final order was passed on 24th February, 2004 and received by assessee on 27th February, 2004. Assessee claimed that said order was received by it on 19th July, 2004 and therefore rectification application filed by it on 26th October, 2004 was within period of limitation of six months' as provided in Section 35C(2) of Act, 1944. 4. Tribunal has rejected the said rectification application on the ground that period of six months will have to be counted from the date of order i.e. 24th February, 2004 and not from the date when it was served upon assessee. 5. We find that this issue has been considered by Apex Court in Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said to have left his hand. The date of communication of the order to the party whose rights are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time. 13. So far as the party who is affected by the order or decision for seeking his remedies against the same, he should be made aware of passing of such order. Therefore, Courts have uniformly laid down as a rule of law that for seeking the remedy the limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to him or the date on which it was pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and what it contains. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion." (emphasis added) 6. The aforesaid decision make things very clear. Where an order is delivered and signed, and if same authority has to exercise power of rectification, modification, correction etc. suo-moto, limitation would commence from the date of signing and delivery of the said order and not when it is communicated to other side. Reason is that, knowledge of order by authority concerned can easily be attibuted on the date when order is signed and delivered by it. But the same thing would not apply when a similar exercise i.e. review, modification, rectification etc. has to be availed by other side i.e. party concerned. That party can only avail such remedy when it is made aware of the order. Therefore, for the purpose of compu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
