9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree months from the date of communication of the order which is well within the meaning of Section 35E (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the legal requirement of Section 35E (3) which is extracted herein above, the limitation would start from 17.10.2016 i.e., the date of communication of the order, which is relevant in the context of the amended provision of Section 35E (3) with effect from 01.06.2007 - the lower appellate authority has committed an error in holding that the limitation began on the date when the adjudicating authority affixed his signature However, considering quantum of amount/duty involved coupled with the fact that for the subsequent period the Revenue itself has not raised any demand, it is found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the same was held to be barred by limitation of time. 2. Heard Shri. R. Subramaniyan, Ld. Department Representative for the Revenue and Ms. D. Naveena, Ld. Advocate for the respondent. 3.1 The Ld. DR contended that the provisions of Section 35E has not been properly appreciated, which after amendment (w.e.f. 10.05.2008) reads as .. from the date of communication of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority . and so, order dt. 05.10.2017 was communicated to the reviewing authority in time after the communication of the above order and therefore the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is bad. 3.2 He further contends that the decisions relied on by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) were relating to the period prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19.01.2017. From the above, it is clear that the first appeal before the lower appellate authority is within the period of three months from the date of communication of the order which is well within the meaning of Section 35E (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the legal requirement of Section 35E (3) which is extracted herein above, I find that the limitation would start from 17.10.2016 i.e., the date of communication of the order, which is relevant in the context of the amended provision of Section 35E (3) (supra) with effect from 01.06.2007. 5.2 I am therefore of the view that the lower appellate authority has committed an error in holding that the limitation began on the date when the adjudicating authority affixed his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
