1993 (2) TMI 111 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to extend time for adjudication.
2. Whether the extension of time amounts to a review of the earlier order.
3. Impact of the extension on the appellants' right to seek a refund.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court to Extend Time for Adjudication:

The primary issue was whether the Court had the jurisdiction to extend the time granted to the Collector for adjudication. The appellants argued that the Collector ceased to have jurisdiction after the initial three-month period expired, and thus, the Court had no authority to extend this time. They contended that the expiry of the time limit granted by the Court resulted in a right accruing to them to seek a refund of the amount paid under protest.

The Court, however, held that any time specified by the Court for the exercise of jurisdiction by authorities is not final and can be extended from time to time. It emphasized that such extensions are procedural orders intended to avoid dilatory tactics and ensure timely completion of proceedings. The Court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das* (AIR 1961 SC 882), which supports the inherent power of the Court to extend time to do justice to litigants if sufficient cause is shown.

2. Whether the Extension of Time Amounts to a Review of the Earlier Order:

The appellants contended that the extension of time amounted to a review of the earlier order, which dismissed a similar application. The Court disagreed, stating that extending time for the authority to pass an adjudication order does not amount to a review of the earlier order. The earlier order remains intact, and the extension merely provides additional time for compliance with the original direction. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in *Shivdeo Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others* (AIR 1963 SC 1909), which states that the High Court has inherent power to review its orders to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave errors.

3. Impact of the Extension on the Appellants' Right to Seek a Refund:

The appellants argued that the extension of time affected their right to seek a refund of the amount paid under protest, rendering their writ petition for a refund infructuous. The Court noted that the Collector had already passed the adjudication order on 5-2-1993, and a copy had been served on the appellants. The Court held that the appellants could challenge the adjudication order by way of an appeal, thereby preserving their right to seek redress.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to extend the time for adjudication and that such an extension did not amount to a review of the earlier order. The extension was necessary to ensure justice and prevent a failure of justice. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants could challenge the adjudication order through appropriate legal channels. No order as to costs was made.