1984 (7) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edeem the same on payment of Rs. 6,000/-as fine. The finding was that there was breach of Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A personal penalty of Rs. 750/- was also imposed. This order was sent to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due as is clear from the endorsement at the foot of the copy of the order which has been filed as Annexure C to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appeal was dated December 14, 1972 but was received in the office of the Appellate Collector on December 16, 1972. The Appellate Collector held that the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 35 of the Act. He also rejected the prayer made by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding, New Delhi and the appeal must be filed within 3 months from the date of personal service or receipt by post by the party. The copy of the order dated September 12, 1972 was received by the petitioner on September 13, 1972, as per the recital in paragraph 2 of the appellant order wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner admitted before the Appellate Collector that he had received the order on September 13, 1972. The appeal could, therefore, have been filed, at best, within three months from September 13, 1972. It is not in dispute that an appeal dated December 14, 1972 was filed by the petitioner. It is clear that the appeal was not presented before the Appellate Authority within three months of September 13, 1972 nor was it d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nion of India and others (1978 (2) Excise Law Times 695) in support of the plea that the appeal having been sent by registered post to the Appellate Authority at the correct postal address the fact that it was received beyond the period of limitation, would not render it barred by limitation. There is no difficulty in accepting the principle which commended itself to the learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court in this case. In fact, the principle was accepted by a Full Bench of this Court in Bhikha Lal and others v. Munna Lal (1974 A.L.J. 470) but the principle will only apply where it is found that the appeal had been despatched to the Appellate Authority prior to the expiry of the period of limitation. In the case before the Gujarat High....