9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was received by the respondent on 21-12-1984. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter called the Board), after consideration of the order, on 11-12-1985 directed the Collector of Central Excise, Madras under the provisions of Section 35E(1) to apply to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, for correct determination of the points arising out of the aforesaid order and accordingly the Collector filed the application before the Tribunal as provided under Section 35E(4) of the Act. 3. Before the Tribunal the respondent urged that the relevant date of the Collector's (adjudicating authority) order for the purpose of Section 35E(3) should be taken as 28-11-1984 and not 21-12-1984 when it was received by the respondent and on that basis the order of the Board under Section 35E(1) of the Act should be held as beyond the period of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and therefore the application before the Tribunal was incompetent. The Tribunal accepted this contention and held that the application was not maintainable. 4. In this appeal filed under Section 35L of the Act the learned counsel for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceeding in which a Collector of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of statisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Collector to apply to the Appellate Tribunal or as the case may be the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal Act, 1986 for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Board in its order". As sub-section (2) is also relevant for consideration that may also be set here and that reads : "2. The Collector of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished under such circumstances the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing what it contains. "Till then though it may be written out, signed and dated, it is nothing but a decision which the officer intends to pass. It is not passed so long it is open to him to tear off what he has written and write something else". In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. [1962 (1) SCR 676] construing the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which prescribed for applications seeking reference to the Court, a time limit of six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award whichever first expires, this Court held that the six months period will have to be calculated from the date of communication of the award. In Asstt. Transport Commissioner (Administration) U.P. & Ors. v. Sri Nand Singh [1981 (1) SCR 131] construing the provision of Section 15 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, it was held that for an aggrieved party the limitation will run from the date when the order was communicated to him. 11. The ratio of these judgments were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his hand. The date of communication of the order to the party whose rights are affected is not the relevant date for purposes of determining whether the power has been exercised within the prescribed time. 13. So far as the party who is affected by the order or decision for seeking his remedies against the same, he should be made aware of passing of such order. Therefore Courts have uniformly laid down as a rule of law that for seeking the remedy the limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to him or the date on which it was pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and what it contains. 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any case to which clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 28 applies, of eight years and in any other case, of four years from the end of the year in which the income, profits or gains were first assessable." 16. After referring to some of the provisions in the Act and some of the earlier decisions and in particular Muthia Chettiar's case (supra) the learned judges observed : "As we have already pointed out, the time limit of four years for which sub-section (2) of Section 34 provided was the period within which the Income-tax Officer had to complete one stage of the proceedings, that is, the assessment of the income and determination of the tax payable, and that stage could be completed by the Income-tax Officer himself, even if the terms of the order of assessment were not communicated within that period of four years to the assessee. The rights of the assessee aggrieved by such an order of assessment have been specifically provided for by other sections of the Act." 17. Thus if the intention or design of the statutory provision was to protect the interest of the person adversely affected, by providing a remedy against the order or decision any period of limitation prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
