https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72379 An appellate order could not validly dispose of a second departmental appeal by a mere addendum when the original order referred only to one appeal and did not state separate points, reasons, and decisions for each appeal as required by section 35A(1); such disposal was invalid. The amended one-year limitation under section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not operate retrospectively in the absence of express or necessary implication, so it could not bar departmental directions issued in relation to an earlier order merely because the amendment later shortened the period. The time-bar objection was therefore rejected, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 May 2011 18:53:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72379 An appellate order could not validly dispose of a second departmental appeal by a mere addendum when the original order referred only to one appeal and did not state separate points, reasons, and decisions for each appeal as required by section 35A(1); such disposal was invalid. The amended one-year limitation under section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 did not operate retrospectively in the absence of express or necessary implication, so it could not bar departmental directions issued in relation to an earlier order merely because the amendment later shortened the period. The time-bar objection was therefore rejected, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72379