1. Appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 14-12-1982 made in C.No. V/1/27/82 and order rebate of excise duty in respect of excess production for the period 28-10-1981 to 30-11-1981 in terms of Notification No. 173/81.
2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following.
3. The case was initially posted for hearing on 9-5-1983. The advocate on record sought an adjournment on the ground that he would be away from India and asked for any date in the month of 3une. Accordingly, the case was posted for hearing to day. Notice of hearing was sent from the Registry on the 1st 3une, 1983. The advocate has, in a letter dated 20th June, 1983 addressed to the Assistant Registrar, again sought an adjournment pleading that he is busy elsewhere. We are unable to postpone the case any further on such a plea; we proceed to dispose of the case on merits.
4. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has rejected the appeal to him on a short point of time bar. In the memorandum of appeal, it is pleaded that the order-in-original was received in the corporate office of the appellant only on 17-4-1982; under Section 51 of the Companies Act, 1956 the date of receipt of the corporate office should be the relevant date for purposes of computing time limit. The Collector (Appeals) has not accepted this plea.
5. We note in passing that the claim itself has been filed by the General Manager of the appellant-factory at Shakarnagar, the show cause notice has been issued to them at Shakarnagar and the Assistant Collector's order has also been communicated to that address. Having initiated and accepted service of letters at the earlier stages at the factory office, it does not seem proper on the part of the appellant-company now to plead that all such notices should be served on them at their corporate office at Hyderabad. Be that as it may, we note that even on the basis of the date of receipt of the order of the Assistant Collector as 17-4-1982 (at the corporate office), the appeal has been filed more than three months from the date of receipt of the order at Hyderabad. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Thus, even on this basis, the appeal is barred by Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.