Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Shaw Wallace Gelatine Ltd. on 16 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(84)ECC802
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the order of review was passed after one year from the date of the adjudication order. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
3. The contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority signed the order on 29.10.97. Therefore, the date of order is 29.10.97, whereas in the impugned order held that the date of order is 28.10.97, The contention of the Revenue is also that as per provisions of Limitation Act, the period for obtaining copy of the order is to be excluded from the period of limitation. The contention of the Revenue is that while construing a statute, plain meaning of the language is to be looked into and two reasonably possible view can be taken that one which would promote its constitutionality should be preferred. The respondents relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. MM. Rubber Co. to submit that the review order should be passed within a period of one year from the date of order.
4. In this case the adjudication order was passed on 18.10.96 which was issued on 28.10.96. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue and it is also cleared by the copy of the order filed with this appeal. The review order was passed on 31.10.97. This fact is also admitted by the Revenue. Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise can call for the record of any proceedings in which any adjudicating authorities subordinate to him have passed any decision or order under this Act and may by order, direct such authority to apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of such point arising out of the decision or order.
5. Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act provides that no order shall made under Sub-section (2) after expiry of one year from the date of decision or order of the adjudicating authority.
6. In the present case the adjudicating authority passed the order on 18.10.96 whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the necessary order under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act on 31.10.97. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, v. M.M. Rubber Co. (Supra) held that the Limitation of one year from the date of the decision of the order is run from the date of signing of the decision of the order by the concerned authorities. In view of the above provisions of Section 35E of the Central Excise Act and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Limitation Act as pleaded in the present appeal are not applicable in respect of order passed under Section 35E of the Act. As the Review order is passed beyond the period of one year as provided under Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.