1996 (3) TMI 297 - AT - Central Excise

Appeals Dismissed Due to Time Limit Breach

The Tribunal found that the review order was passed beyond the one-year limitation period, rendering the appeals not maintainable. As per the settled ... Appeal by Department Issues:- Review order time-barred under Section 35E(1)- Maintainability of appeals based on review order timingAnalysis:1. Review order time-barred under Section 35E(1): The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the time-barred review order in their case. The advocate for the respondents argued that as per Section 35E(1), the Board must review the order of the Collector of Central Excise within one year from the date of the decision or order. In this case, the adjudication order was issued on 16-3-1988, signed by the Collector prior to 14-3-1988. However, the review order issued by the Board was signed and issued on 15-3-1989, exceeding the one-year limitation. Citing the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M. M. Rubber Co., it was emphasized that the limitation period runs from the date of signing the decision or order by the concerned authority. The Tribunal noted the absence of a date below the Collector's signature in the impugned order, leading to multiple adjournments to ascertain the actual date of signing.2. Maintainability of appeals based on review order timing: The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the order was despatched on 16-3-1988, making the date of communication the date of the decision or order. Despite efforts to obtain case records to confirm the signing date, the DR was unable to produce the records. The Tribunal acknowledged the DR's inability to provide evidence of the signing date despite repeated opportunities. With the Collector not indicating a date below his signature in the order, the Tribunal relied on an attestation dated 14-3-1988 and an endorsement for stencilling on 10-3-1988. Considering the CBEC's review order dated 15-3-1989, signed on the same day, it was concluded that the review order was passed beyond the one-year limitation period. Referring to the Apex Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co., it was clarified that the limitation period starts from the date of signing the decision or order by the concerned authority, not from the date of communication to the party seeking appellate remedies.3. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the review order was passed beyond the one-year limitation period, rendering the appeals not maintainable. As per the settled position by the Apex Court, the order of review must comply with the one-year timeframe from the date of signing the decision or order. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed without delving into the merits, and the miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.