2012 (3) TMI 307 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Time limitation - The submission of the Petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature under the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 35 has laid down an outer limit of a further period of thirty days, beyond the original period of sixty days, for condonation of delay, this does not oust the power of the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that unlike Section 35H which provided an absolute period of limitation of 180 days, Section 35 to which the present Petition relates, does provide a power to condone a delay beyond sixty days though upto an extent of thirty days - Once the legislature has laid down a period within which an appeal has to be filed and has prescribed the extent to which a delay beyond that period can be condoned, recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would stand expressly excluded within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Decided against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise.
2. Interpretation of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the limitation period for filing an appeal.
3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in condoning delays beyond the prescribed period.
4. Comparison with previous judgments on similar issues.

Issue 1: The petitioner sought direction to condone the delay in filing an appeal against the Assistant Commissioner's order. The contention was based on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing courts to condone delays beyond the prescribed period.

Issue 2: Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates filing an appeal within sixty days, extendable by thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The legislative intent was clear that the power to condone delay is limited to thirty days beyond the initial sixty-day period.

Issue 3: The court rejected the contention that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked to condone delays beyond the period specified in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to limit the power to condone delays to thirty days beyond the prescribed period.

Issue 4: Previous judgments like Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India (P) Ltd. were cited to support the interpretation of statutory provisions. These judgments highlighted that special laws like the Central Excise Act are intended to be complete codes governing matters within their scope, and the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to supplement or extend the limitation periods set by the special laws.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that allowing condonation of delay beyond the statutory limit would undermine the legislative scheme of the Central Excise Act. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to direct authorities to breach statutory provisions on limitation periods for filing appeals.