TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d can easily be attibuted on the date when order is signed and delivered by it. But the same thing would not apply when a similar exercise i.e. review, modification, rectification etc. has to be availed by other side i.e. party concerned. That party can only avail such remedy when it is made aware of the order. Therefore, for the purpose of computation of commencement of period of limitation, when the remedy has to be availed by a party, it is the date on which order is communicated to it and not the date on which order is signed or delivered, unless, it can be shown that date on which order was signed and delivered, party concerned was present in the court and had due knowledge thereof, and therefore, limitation should commence therefrom. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .M. Rubber Co. [1991 (55 E.L.T. 289 (SC)]. Court has found that the party who is effected by the order or decision, for seeking his remedies against the same, should be made aware of passing of such order. Therefore, limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to the party and not the date on which it was pronounced or published. Unless communicated, the party affected by it would have no occasion to avail further remedy. It must have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and its contents. In other words limitation shall be counted not from the date when order is signed or delivered but from the date it was served on the affected party. Court in Collector of Central Excise Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontains. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive is thus an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be said to have been concluded and binding on him. Otherwise the party affected by it will have no means of obeying the order or acting in conformity with it or of appealing against it or otherwise having it set. This is based upon, as observed by Rajamanner, CJ in Muthia Chettiar V. CIT (supra) a salutary and just principal . The application of this rule so far as the aggrieved party is concerned is not dependent on the provisions of the particular statute, but it is so under the general law. 14............ 17. Thus if the intention and design of the statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of computation of commencement of period of limitation, when the remedy has to be availed by a party, it is the date on which order is communicated to it and not the date on which order is signed or delivered, unless, it can be shown that date on which order was signed and delivered, party concerned was present in the court and had due knowledge thereof, and therefore, limitation should commence therefrom. Even in that case, it becomes the date of communication of order and not the date of mere passing of order. The Tribunal in the case in hand, in taking a view otherwise, has erred in law and failed to consider this distinction. 7. In view thereof, aforesaid question is answered in favour of appellant. Order of Tribunal is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
