2025 (2) TMI 259 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of an application for rectification of mistake due to a delay in filing under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - failure to follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of SUNITADEVI SINGHANIA HOSPITAL TRUST v/s UNION OF INDIA 2008 (11) TMI 249 - SUPREME COURT . HELD THAT - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise versus Hongo India Private Limited and another 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT while interpreting the provisions of Sections 35 35B 35EE 35G and 35 H of the Central Excise Act 1944 held that the language used in the provisions was clear that the Legislature intended the Appellate Authority to entertain appeal by condoning delay up to 30 days and as per unamended provision of Section 35H sufficient time of 180 days was prescribed for filing an appeal and revision and therefore it was held that the Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 excluded in absence of laws condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after prescribed period. There is no clause permitting the Tribunal to condone the delay. It is pertinent to note that Section 35C (2) has been amended with effect from 11.05.2002 vide Section 140 (i) of Act of 20 of 2002 to reduce the time limit from four years to six months for rectification of the mistake in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Thus the Legislature in his wisdom has fixed the time period of six months to rectify any mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal within a period of six months only and as such the Tribunal has no power to extend the period prescribed beyond six months to entertain any application for rectification of mistake. Conclusion - The statutory time limits are binding and cannot be extended by the Tribunal unless explicitly provided by law. The Tribunal acted within its legal bounds by rejecting the rectification application due to the delay. Appeal dismissed.

The judgment from the Gujarat High Court addresses an appeal concerning the rejection of an application for rectification of mistake due to a delay in filing, under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant sought to condone a delay of 178 days in filing the rectification application, which was rejected by the Customs Excises and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for rectification on the ground of limitation, allegedly not following principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a prior case.

Issues Presented and Considered:

The primary issue was whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for rectification due to the delay, and whether it should have exercised its inherent powers to condone the delay based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust v. Union of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case revolves around Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allows the Appellate Tribunal to amend any order to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within six months from the date of the order. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust, arguing for the Tribunal's inherent powers to condone delays.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined whether the Tribunal could condone the delay beyond the statutory six-month period. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hongo India Private Limited, which emphasized that statutory time limits are absolute and unextendable unless explicitly provided otherwise. The Court noted that the Tribunal does not have the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period under Section 35C(2).

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the 178-day delay in filing the rectification application. The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the issue of document supply and had upheld the Commissioner's decision, which included addressing the appellant's grievances about non-supplied documents.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the statutory provisions of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the strict adherence to the six-month limitation period for filing rectification applications. It concluded that the Tribunal correctly followed the statutory mandate by rejecting the application due to the delay.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued for the Tribunal's inherent powers to condone the delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust. The Court, however, distinguished this case from the precedent, noting that the Supreme Court's decision was based on its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which do not apply to the Tribunal.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly rejected the application for rectification due to the delay, as it lacked the statutory authority to condone delays beyond six months. The appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision was misplaced, as the Tribunal does not have the same powers as the Supreme Court under Article 142.

Significant Holdings:

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the strict statutory limitation period for filing rectification applications under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. It reiterated that the Tribunal does not possess inherent powers to extend this period, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Hongo India Private Limited.

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory time limits are binding and cannot be extended by the Tribunal unless explicitly provided by law. It highlights the distinction between the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 and those of the Tribunal under the Central Excise Act.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the Tribunal acted within its legal bounds by rejecting the rectification application due to the delay, and the appeal was dismissed. The Court found no substantial error in the Tribunal's adherence to statutory limitations, thereby ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the appellant.

← Previous