TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 63
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieved by that order went before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (MD) No.10716 of 2005 with the grievance that Tribunal passed order on 28.2.2005 without considering that Revenue's appeal was time-barred under Section 35E of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also grievance of the respondent that decision was taken by CBE&C on 17.3.2003 to seek appeal remedy before Tribunal and review order was ante dated as 31.12.2002 to cross bar of limitation. Disposing the writ petition, Hon'ble High court held that Tribunal's order dated 28.2.2005 was passed without giving opportunity to the respondent and directed fresh hearing of the matter. 3. At the outset, preliminary objection of respondent was that there was no review order at all existing as on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Delhi, review file is not traceable at present for placing before the Bench. 5. It was also stated by the learned D. R. that an affidavit received from Board explains that at relevant point of time proposals for review of the orders passed by the Commissioners were forwarded to Board [Member (L&J)] by respective field formations and after examining the proposal, approval of member of Board was taken on the note sheet and Draft Review Order signed by him. Fair copy of such Review orders were endorsed to the concerned Commissioner and Chief Commissioner being attested by the Superintendent (Review)/Technical Officer (Review)]. The relevant facts showing manner how review was conducted as extracted from some Review files were as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Excise Act, 1944 prescribed necessary prerequisite review of the order appealed by Board to arrive at a conclusion whether such order was legal and proper in the eyes of law. Time of 1 (one) year was prescribed to review order. Statutory provision relating to review at that time was as under :- "SECTION 35E. Powers of Board or Commissioner of Central Excise to pass certain orders. - (1) The Board may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Commissioner of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Commissioner or any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mit for exercise of right to remedy is the necessity of civil society to put an end to the litigation without the same being perpetuated without time limit. For no adherence to law of limitation, Right diminishes with the passage of time and remedy is thus barred thereafter. Unless a party exercising right of appeal is vigilant to limitation prescribed by law, it has no right to ask the other side to suffer for the indolence of the former. 10. Limitation has prescribed life span to legal remedy and also to save time of Judicial forums without the precious time of courts wasted trying a time-barred remedy lost by afflux of time. Such remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue is maintainable being barred by limitation. 12. Entire contention of Revenue based on Board's unsworn affidavit averring non-availability of review record does not grant immunity from bar of limitation. It is also strange to notice practice of Board from the Table herein before depicted. Review in different cases appearing in the Table was done at the eleventh hour without being conscious of remedial measure. A vigilant only gets leniency while an indolent fails to get so. Just because the Tribunal believes that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit filing an appeal late and refusal to condone delay may make the appellant remediless, an indolent has no right to abuse the process of law laid down by apex court in the case ....