1987 (1) TMI 94 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "date of order" under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether an appeal can be preferred by post and the implications of the date of posting.
3. Whether the appellate authority has the power to condone delay in preferring an appeal.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of the term "date of order" under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner challenged the order of the third respondent, which was served on them on 3rd August 1978. The issue was whether the appeal could be preferred within three months from the date of service of the order. The judgment highlighted the absence of a provision for condonation of delay before the 1980 amendment, emphasizing that the appeal should be preferred from the date of service of the order.

2. The judgment discussed whether an appeal could be preferred by post and the implications of the date of posting. The petitioner contended that the appeal was sent before the expiry of the prescribed period by post, considering the date of posting as the date of preferring the appeal. However, the respondent argued that there was no provision for appealing by post and that the post office could not be treated as the agent of the appellate authority. Various legal precedents were cited to support both arguments, ultimately leading to the rejection of the petitioner's contention.

3. The judgment addressed the issue of whether the appellate authority has the power to condone delay in preferring an appeal. The petitioner argued that even though there was no specific provision for condonation of delay before the amendment, such power should be implied. Legal precedents were cited to establish that in the absence of a specific provision, the appellate authority cannot condone the delay, and the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to such proceedings. The contention of condonation of delay was rejected based on legal principles.

4. Lastly, the judgment examined the allegation of a violation of principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the second respondent should have provided a personal hearing, citing a breach of natural justice. However, the judgment emphasized that when the appeal was time-barred, there was no requirement for a personal hearing. Legal precedents were cited to support the view that not every stage necessitates a personal hearing. Consequently, all contentions raised by the petitioner were dismissed, leading to the rejection of the writ petition.