1980 (2) TMI 86 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal - Postal authorities - General Law - Appeals and reference petitions - Distinction in presentation - Effect

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdictional error by the Collector of Excise in dismissing appeals on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a paper manufacturer, challenged the dismissal of two appeals by the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, on the basis of limitation. The first appeal was received by the Appellate Collector after the prescribed period of three months, while the second appeal was also deemed time-barred. The petitioner argued that the appeals should be considered filed on the dates they were sent via registered post, not upon delivery to the authorities.

The court examined the Central Excises and Salt Act, noting that it does not specify the method of appeal presentation. The term "to appeal" was defined as filing or presenting a petition of appeal to the Appellate Authority. The court emphasized that the date of posting cannot be equated with the date of filing an appeal unless expressly provided. The petitioner's contention that postal authorities should be deemed agents of the addressee was dismissed unless there was an agreement or representation to that effect.

Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted the distinction between posting and delivery in determining the date of filing appeals. The petitioner's reliance on decisions from other High Courts was deemed inapplicable to the present case due to the absence of similar provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act. The court concluded that the respondents did not err in considering the appeals time-barred, ultimately dismissing the Rules without costs and staying the order's operation for six weeks.

In summary, the judgment addressed the jurisdictional error claim regarding the dismissal of appeals on the ground of limitation. The court analyzed the Act's provisions, legal definitions, and relevant precedents to determine the correct interpretation of filing appeals. The decision emphasized the importance of explicit provisions and agreements in determining the date of appeal filing, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondents and dismissing the petitioner's claims.