HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33681 of 2010 Date : 02.02.2011 Between : Gajjala Rajesh Babu. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, A.P. & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33681 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 29.11.2010, passed in CR.No.1652/2010/CPE/D4, by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 46-C of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), on the ground that the appeal was filed with a delay of seven (7) days. The order also states that there is no power or provision under the Act, to condone the delay. The petitioner is the owner of Maxi cab bearing No.AP-02-W-6932. The primary authority-Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ananthapur, in exercise of powers under Section 46-C of the Act, by an order, dated 14.09.2010, ordered for confiscation of vehicle, which was seized in connection with Crime No.104/2009-10 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Uravakonda. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under the Act. Petitioner has also filed along with this writ petition, the grounds of appeal filed before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. In paragraph 2 of appeal, it is stated that the order of Deputy Commissioner, dated 14.09.2010, passed in Rc.No.323/2009/B1, was communicated to the petitioner on 14.11.2010, but inspite of the same, the appellate authority, by calculating the delay from the date of order i.e. from 14.09.2010, rejected the appeal without going into merits. Against the orders of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner, there is the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 46-C of the Act, to the Commissioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of such order. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the learned appellate authority has calculated the limitation period from the date of order itself. It is well settled that for the purpose of computation of limitation, the period has to be counted only from the date of service of order, but not from the date of order. As the grounds of appeal itself state that the order of appellate authority was served on the petitioner only on 14.11.2010, and as the appeal was filed on 20.11.2010, it cannot be said that there is delay on the part of petitioner and the appeal was barred by limitation, as prescribed under Section 46-C of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 29.11.2010, passed in CR.No.1652/2010/CPE/D4, by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, is set aside and the matter is remitted back with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders after giving the notice of hearing to the petitioner. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd February 2011 ajr