2005 (10) TMI 85 - HC - Central Excise

Appellate Authority refused to condone delay - revision application to the GOI also came to be rejected & revisional authority upheld the order of the Appellate Authority refusing to condone delay beyond the period of 30 days petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone delay, is not permissible order of commissioner can t be set aside

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has the power to condone delay beyond 60 days.
2. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Central Excise Act.
3. Whether the High Court can condone delay in filing appeals under its writ jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power to Condon Delay Beyond 60 Days:
The central question was whether the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) could condone delays beyond 60 days. The petitioner had delayed filing appeals by 202 and 194 days, respectively. The appellate authority refused to condone these delays as it lacked the power to do so beyond the prescribed period. The court referred to the statutory provision under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, which allows an appeal to be presented within three months and an additional three months if sufficient cause is shown. The court concluded that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the specified period.

2. Applicability of the Limitation Act:
The court examined whether the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to the Central Excise Act proceedings. The petitioner argued that the absence of the phrase "but not thereafter" in Section 35 of the Act implied that the Limitation Act's provisions should apply, allowing for condonation of delays. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Popular Construction Co., which held that the time limit prescribed under special laws like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is absolute and unextendable by the court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court also cited cases like Hukumdev Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra and Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar, which supported the view that even if a special law does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, its scheme and object may imply such exclusion. The court concluded that the Central Excise Act is a self-contained code, and the Limitation Act does not apply to its proceedings.

3. High Court's Power to Condon Delay Under Writ Jurisdiction:
The petitioner alternatively argued that the High Court, under its writ jurisdiction, could condone the delay in filing appeals. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company, which stated that the High Court's power under Articles 226/227 is to enforce the rule of law and cannot be used to direct authorities to act contrary to law. The court also cited Ion Exchange India Ltd., which held that while the High Court can exercise its power under Article 226, it should respect legislative intent and interfere only in exceptional cases. The court found no justification to invoke its writ jurisdiction to condone the delay in this case, as it would lead to inconsistent orders within the same proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) lacks the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period, the Limitation Act does not apply to the Central Excise Act proceedings, and the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to condone the delay in this case. The petition was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.