Certified-copy time exclusion and specific excise limitation bar recovery where the residuary rule cannot override rule 11.

Time spent obtaining a certified copy can be excluded under the Limitation Act only to the extent it is actually requisite; a court practice for informing the record department cannot be treated as a rule of limitation. On the excise issue, rule 9(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules applied only to clandestine removal, while recovery for an alleged short-levy fell under the specific limitation in rule 11. Because the demand was raised beyond that period, rule 11 barred recovery and the residuary rule 12 could not be used to avoid the time bar.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the period consumed in complying with the court practice for obtaining a certified copy could be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the excise demand was governed by rule 9(2), rule 11 or rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the period consumed in complying with the court practice for obtaining a certified copy could be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The appeal was filed with a certified copy obtained after the order was drawn up and filed. The Court held that the long-standing practice of informing the Current Record Department of filing the order was not itself a statutory rule of limitation and could not be elevated into one. A practice may guide the exercise of discretion on delay, but it cannot control exclusion of time under section 12. The period actually occupied in obtaining the certified copy was therefore the relevant time requisite.

Conclusion: The appeal was not barred by limitation and the preliminary objection failed, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the excise demand was governed by rule 9(2), rule 11 or rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956.

Analysis: Rule 9(2) was held to apply only to clandestine removal without assessment, which was not the factual position here, since the goods had been removed on AR.2 forms and duty had been assessed by the Excise Officer. Even assuming incorrect statements in the forms led to short-levy, the specific provision governing recovery was rule 11, which prescribes a six-month limitation. As the demand was raised long after that period, rule 11 barred recovery. Rule 12, being residuary, could not be invoked where rule 11 specifically applied.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred under rule 11 and the contrary contentions under rules 9(2) and 12 were rejected, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ relief granted by the High Court was sustained because the excise recovery was barred by the applicable limitation provision, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A long-standing court practice cannot be converted into a rule of limitation so as to defeat exclusion of time under section 12, and where a specific recovery provision with its own limitation applies, the residuary provision cannot be used to bypass that bar.

---