1993 (8) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing Reference Application, Condonation of delay, Time limits under Section 35G of Central Excises and Salt Act, Tribunal's discretion, Comparison of time limits, Doctrine of Alternative Injunction, Condonation of delay beyond 30 days, Rights of respondents, Legal position on delay, Supreme Court precedent.

Analysis:
The Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of a 3-year and four-month delay in filing a Reference Application related to an order passed by the Tribunal on appeals by M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. The Collector argued that the time limits under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act are not mandatory but directory, citing a Tribunal decision in Anna Match Works v. Collector of Central Excise. The Collector claimed the delay was due to genuine reasons and requested the Tribunal to condone the delay, emphasizing the importance of the issue with recurring revenue effects.

The opposing counsel contended that the comparison between the time limits for filing Reference Applications and the Tribunal's obligation to refer cases to the High Court was inappropriate. The counsel argued that the specific limitation of 30 days for condonation of delay beyond the 60-day period for filing Reference Applications was deliberate and not flexible. Referring to a Tribunal decision in Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Lal Chand Anand, the counsel asserted that the Tribunal's discretion to condone delay is limited to 30 days beyond the initial 60-day period. The counsel emphasized the respondents' acquired rights based on the appeal decision and opposed condoning the delay.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and referred to a Supreme Court precedent in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools & Plants, emphasizing that the discretionary extension of the normal time period is limited to a specific span of 30 days under Section 35G(1). The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Reference Application was not condonable, rejecting the Miscellaneous Application and dismissing the Reference Application as time-barred. The decision was based on the legal position that no person should suffer due to court delays and the specific limitation provided under the statute.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the legal provisions under the Central Excises and Salt Act, the comparison of time limits, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court regarding the extension of time limits for filing applications. The Tribunal held that the delay beyond the specified period was not condonable, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and protecting the rights of the parties involved.