9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 228 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - time limitation - condonation of short delay in filing the appeal in the first round of assessment before the Commissioner of Central Excise - HELD THAT - The issue involved in this civil miscellaneous appeal is covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. ANR. 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the High Court has no power to condone the delay in filing the reference application filed by the Commissioner under unamended Section 35-H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 beyond the prescribed period of 180 days and rightly dismissed the reference on the ground of limitation. In the light of the aforesaid judgement, which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals. 2. Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT on grounds of limitation. 3. Substantial questions of law raised by the appellant. 4. Applicability of a judgment by the Supreme Court regarding the exclusion of provisions of the Limitation Act. Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals The appellant, engaged in the business of manufacturing oxygen and nitrogen, contested an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals (II), Chennai, challenging the order, but it was dismissed as time-barred. The appellant then appealed to the CESTAT, which also dismissed the appeal citing limitation. The appellant subsequently approached the High Court seeking relief from the dismissals based on the delay in filing the appeal. Issue 2: Dismissal of appeal by CESTAT on grounds of limitation The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's appeal on the basis of being time-barred, upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals. The appellant raised substantial questions of law challenging the dismissals and sought relief from the High Court. The questions raised included the alleged perversity of the CESTAT's order, the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, and the potential miscarriage of justice if the delay was not accepted. Issue 3: Substantial questions of law raised by the appellant The appellant presented several substantial questions of law before the High Court, questioning the legality and reasoning behind the dismissals by the lower authorities. These questions included whether the CESTAT's order was erroneous, if the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned, and whether the Tribunal erred in following a specific decision that was deemed distinguishable from the present case. The appellant argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control and that a failure to consider the merits of the appeal would result in a miscarriage of justice. Issue 4: Applicability of a judgment by the Supreme Court regarding the exclusion of provisions of the Limitation Act During the proceedings, both counsels referred to a judgment by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited, which discussed the exclusion of provisions of the Limitation Act under special laws. The judgment emphasized that the time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act for making references to the High Court was absolute and could not be extended through provisions of the Limitation Act. The High Court, considering the applicability of this judgment to the present case, dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court. The High Court, after considering the arguments and substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, relied on the judgment by the Supreme Court regarding the exclusion of provisions of the Limitation Act under special laws. The Court found that the time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act was absolute and unextendable, emphasizing the legislative intent to respect the prescribed limitations. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal, aligning with the precedent set by the Supreme Court and emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in legal proceedings.
|
