JUDGMENT

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:—The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of calculation of the period of one year provided under Section 35E(3) of The Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). Briefly stated the question arises in the following circumstances.

2. By order in Original No. 34 of 1984 dated 28-11-1984, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras as an adjudicating authority within the meaning of the Act, held as barred by limitation the demand from the respondent towards excise duty on biaxially oriental polypropylene films as set out in the show cause notice dated 25-10-1983 and dropped further proceedings against the respondent. A copy of this order was attested by the Superintendent of the office on 21-12-1984 and despatched to the respondent. It 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(I) 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 35 E(4) of the Act.

3. Before the Tribunal the respondent urged that the relevant date of the Collectors (adjudicating authority) order for the purposes of Sec. 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 appellant contended that mere writing an order in law in the sense of affecting the rights of the parties for whom the order is meant.and that though the order of the adjudicating authority was made on 28-11-1984 a copy of the same was sent to the respondent only on 21-12-1984 and received by him on the very day and that therefore the limitation would start only at the earliest from 21-12-1984. He stated that the order was received by the Board also only subsequent to 21-12-1984. His further submission was that enabling the giving of the direction under Section 35E(I) and the application under Section 35E(4) inpursuance of that direction shall be treated as if a right of appeal given to the department., On this basis his argument was that the departmental authorities and the private parties are to be treated equally as aggrieved persons for the purposes of calculating the time for making the direction under Section 35E(3) of the Act.

5. Before we discuss the arguments of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to set out some relevant provisions in the Act. Section 35 of the Act provides for an appeal to a person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act by a Central Excise Officer lower than a Collector of Central Excise and that such an appeal will have to be filed "within three months from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order". Clause 5 of Section 35A requires that on the disposal of the appeal, the Collector (Appeals) shall communicate the order passed by him to the appellant, the adjudicating authority and the Collector of Central Excise. Section 35E provides for a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by, among other orders, (1) an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A and (2) a decision or order passed by the Collector of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority. Such an appeal will have to be filed "within three months from the date on which th