2024 (5) TMI 996 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing Appeal - challenged the order passed by the appellate authority u/s 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 for dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed period - HELD THAT - Upon a perusal of the memo of appeal filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the order was communicated on January 17, 2023, as admitted by the petitioner itself. The petitioner has explained the delay stating that the delay was caused due to the ignorance of AR/legal counsel and also because the petitioner suffered with medical emergency caused by acute viral hepatitis between the period April 10, 2023 to May 31, 2023. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India 2016 (6) TMI 437 - DELHI HIGH COURT to argue that in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases, the writ court has the power to condone the delay. However, as pointed out in the appellate order, which is under challenge before this Court, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. C.C.E., Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has held that u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act, the delay cannot be condoned beyond what is prescribed under the Central Excise Act as the language of the said section specifically provides for condonation of delay of additional 30 days only. Section 85 of the Act is in pari materia with the above section. The Finance Act, 1994 is a special statute and a self-contained code by itself having an inbuilt mechanism wherein it has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 ( Limitation Act ). It is a trite law that the power of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be available only if it is extended to a special statute. The adjudication of matters involving statutory timelines often raises questions regarding the interplay between general statutes such as the Limitation Act and special statutes with their own prescribed limitations. Thus, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issue involves a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 for dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed period.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Delay in Filing Appeal
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a delay of 85 days beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner attributed the delay to the ignorance of the authorized representative and a medical emergency. The petitioner sought condonation of delay citing various High Court judgments. However, the Supreme Court precedent establishes that the delay cannot be condoned beyond the permissible period provided under the statute, as explicitly stated in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, which is in pari materia with Section 85 of the Finance Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the prescribed period, excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Issue 2: Exclusion of Limitation Act
The Finance Act, 1994 is deemed a special statute with a self-contained code that impliedly excludes the application of the Limitation Act, 1963. Special statutes like the Finance Act and the Central Excise Act are enacted to comprehensively address specific legal areas, including procedural aspects and timelines for legal proceedings. Courts have consistently held that when a special statute contains provisions governing limitation periods, it excludes the application of general statutes like the Limitation Act. This exclusion is based on the legislative intent to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive regime governing all aspects within the relevant legal domain.

Conclusion:
The judgment upholds the dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of fidelity to legislative intent in interpreting special statutes. The court highlights the primacy of limitation under special statutes over general statutes, aiming to ensure efficiency, predictability, and coherence in legal proceedings. The decision affirms that no interference is warranted with the impugned order, thereby dismissing the writ petition.