1974 (10) TMI 96 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Central Excise duty order under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Penalty imposition under Rule 9(2) for contravention of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Appeal against order dismissed as time-barred; Competency of appellate authority to condone delay in appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order directing payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for producing cotton fabrics on powerlooms without payment of duty. Additionally, a penalty was imposed under Rule 9(2) for contravention of various Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice, followed by an ex parte order against the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal to the Collector was dismissed as time-barred, leading to a revision application to the Government, which was also rejected. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was minimal and should have been condoned. However, the Collector held the appeal time-barred due to a three-day delay in filing. The Court upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the appeal was filed when received, not when posted, and there was no provision for condoning the delay in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have had the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Court held that neither the Act nor its rules empowered the appellate authority to condone such delays. Reference to Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, was made, but it was deemed inapplicable to appeals under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court emphasized that the authority under Section 35 was not a court, and the provisions of Section 5 could not be invoked. Additionally, Section 29 precluded the application of Sections 4 and 5 to appeals under Section 35. Consequently, the Collector's rejection of the appeal on grounds of limitation was deemed justified. The revision authority's confirmation of the Collector's decision was upheld, and no interference was warranted in the present petition challenging the same.