2008 (1) TMI 745 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Time Limitation - Held that - The Courts have unanimously held that there is no such power for condonation and the appeal has to be dismissed summarily on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court in the case Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA rejected a similar contention observing that such a direction would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Whether the Tribunal can direct the appeal to be heard on merit despite being time-barred.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals where the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed them on the ground of limitation, as they were filed beyond the prescribed period of ninety days under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The proviso to Section 35 allows a maximum period of ninety days for filing an appeal, which cannot be extended further. The Tribunal considered the significance of this point and heard arguments from both parties extensively on this issue.

2. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should consider the circumstances preventing the timely filing of the appeal and should have the discretion to hear the appeal on merit. However, the Tribunal referred to a recent Supreme Court case, Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur, where it was held that the provisions of Section 35 of the Act exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted that various statutes have similar provisions, and past court decisions have consistently held that appeals filed beyond the prescribed period must be dismissed summarily on the ground of limitation.

3. The Tribunal also discussed the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, noting that it may not apply to Tribunals or quasi-judicial bodies under special statutes. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that the power to condone delay is limited by the specific provisions of the statute, and there is no discretion to extend the time limit beyond what is prescribed.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not err in dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal clarified that it cannot direct the Commissioner to hear the appeals on merit, as it would undermine the specific provision of limitation. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, accepting the objection raised by the Revenue.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals due to being time-barred under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the lack of discretion to extend the time limit beyond what is prescribed by the statute. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal principles established in past court judgments and the specific provisions of the law regarding limitation periods for filing appeals.