2010 (3) TMI 699 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal - limitation - Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay upto 30 days and in the absence of any clause to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period - petitions being without merit are rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of order dismissing appeal, Condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 35(I) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding condonation of delay, Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the legality and validity of an order dismissing an appeal, specifically focusing on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 35(I) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order in question confirmed the dismissal of the appeal filed after 104 days of receiving the impugned order. The petitioner relied on a larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. to argue for condonation of the delay beyond the normal 60-day period. The court emphasized the importance of statutory provisions and the limitations they impose, citing the principle that the Court cannot supply omissions in legislation under the guise of interpretation.

The judgment referred to observations made by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in another case to highlight the importance of adhering to the clear intent and language of a statute. It emphasized that if a statute specifies a time limit for filing an application and allows for extension only up to a certain point, the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain applications filed beyond that specified limit, even if filed in good faith. The Court stressed the duty to give effect to the expressed intent of the legislature, particularly in the context of a taxing statute.

Further, the judgment discussed the interpretation of Sections 35, 35(B), 35(C), 35(G), and 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the decision in Hongo India (P) Ltd. The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court held that the legislature intended the Appellate Authority to condone delays up to 30 days, without any provision for condoning delays beyond the prescribed period by showing sufficient cause, thereby excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Court found no fault with the conclusions of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order, given the legal position established by the relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

Ultimately, the writ petitions challenging the order were deemed without merit and rejected based on the legal analysis and interpretation of the applicable provisions and precedents.