https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87116 The date of an adjudication order was examined where the order had been dictated on one date but the fair copy was signed later. The earlier notation that the order was dictated was not, by itself, treated as proof that the order had been passed. The operative date was taken to be the date of signature on the fair copy. On that basis, the issue was treated as one of fact rather than a question of law, and the reference was rejected. en-us Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87116 The date of an adjudication order was examined where the order had been dictated on one date but the fair copy was signed later. The earlier notation that the order was dictated was not, by itself, treated as proof that the order had been passed. The operative date was taken to be the date of signature on the fair copy. On that basis, the issue was treated as one of fact rather than a question of law, and the reference was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87116