9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 6 - HC - Central ExciseApplicability of Section 5 & Section 29(2) of of the Limitation Act to appeal u/s 35 of Central excise Act, 1944 Held that - The question has already been answered in series of judgements in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jameshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd. 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT - under the proviso of Sec.35 a period of limitation came to be prescribed which being a special law would override the general law as provided in Sec.35 of the Act - the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec.35 makes the position crystal clear that the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days and that the language used makes the position clear that the Legislature intended to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only upto the 30 days and not 60 days. Appellant has tried his level best to convince the Court that all the judgments are distinguishable - Ignorance of the judgment of Apex Court cannot be considered as an excuse and it is always expected from the lawyer to come prepared and take note of the judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court before the matter is being argued before the Court and that is the only way to provide assistance to the Court for dispensation of justice to the litigants Decided against Appellant.
Issues:
Applicability of Sec.5 & Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act to appeal under Sec. 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The High Court heard two appeals involving the common question of the applicability of Sec.5 and Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act to appeals under Sec. 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Court framed a substantial question of law regarding this issue and issued notices to the respondent for their input. The respondent pointed out that the question had already been addressed by the Apex Court in previous judgments. The Apex Court rulings emphasized that the appellate authority has limited power to condone delays beyond the specified periods as provided in the statutes. The judgments clarified that there is an exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in certain scenarios, and the appellate authorities cannot extend the time for filing appeals beyond the statutory limits. In a subsequent case, the Apex Court reiterated the limitations on the power of condonation of delays in filing appeals and references. The Court highlighted that specific time limits are set by the legislature for different types of appeals, and these limits must be strictly adhered to without the possibility of condoning delays beyond the prescribed periods. The judgments emphasized that the statutory provisions clearly indicate the intention of the legislature to restrict the time for filing appeals and references. The Division Bench of the High Court, relying on the Apex Court judgments, dismissed the appeals related to the substantial question framed by the Court. The appellant's counsel attempted to distinguish the judgments but admitted unawareness of the relevant rulings during the initial hearing. The Court emphasized the importance of lawyers being well-prepared and aware of relevant legal precedents before arguing cases. Despite the appellant's ignorance being unacceptable, the Court chose not to take further action in this instance. Considering the precedents and the clarity provided by the Apex Court on the issue in question, the High Court concluded that the substantial question of law framed earlier no longer required consideration. Consequently, the instant appeals and stay applications were dismissed based on the established legal principles and precedents discussed in the judgments.
|
