9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) on 22-8-2000 along with an Application for Condonation of Delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) by referring to the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 held that there is no provision for condonation of delay after a total period of six months from the receipt of the Order of Adjudication. Inasmuch as the appeal was filed after eleven months from the date of receipt of the Order, the same was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) as barred by limitation. The said Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before me. 2. Shri D.N. Singh, learned Consultant for the appellants agrees that the Commissioner (Appeals) was having no powers to condone the delay beyond the period of six months, but submits tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly only to proceedings before Courts and not to proceedings before Quasi-Judicial Tribunals or Executive Authorities. The limitation can only be waived by the Courts and not by the Tribunals nor by the Collector (Appeals) nor by the Collector and others. Wherever there are specific proceedings to condone the delay under the relevant Act, that power can be exercised by the competent authority. The power under the Limitation Act, 1963 can, however, be authorised by the Courts only. 4. He also refers to the Civil Appeal No. 10445 of 1995 [1999 (106) E.L.T. A70 (S.C.)] filed by A.P.E. Bellis India Ltd. against the CEGAT s Order C/208/95-B2, dated 7-4-1995, Hon ble Justice Mr. S.P. Bharucha and Hon ble Justice Mr. S.B. Majmudar dismissed the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Jain Spinners Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 366 (Tribunal) categorically observed that appeal filed beyond a total period of six months whereas Collector competent to condone a total period of six months only. The appeal is rightly rejected by the Collector as time-barred under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hon ble Tribunal has relied on the following case laws :- 1991 (56) E.L.T. 612 1993 (63) E.L.T. 285 1989 (42) E.L.T. 132 1981 (8) E.L.T. 592 (Guj.) The Hon ble Tribunal has also observed that the appellant having a strong case for acceptance of appeal on merits will not be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In this connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made by the Commissioner (Appeals). The effect of laying down of such a limited period of three months for condoning the delay is that if the appeal is filed after the said period, the same will not be entertained. The right of appeal is not an inherent right, but is one that is conferred by statute and has to be exercised strictly in conformity with the statutory provisions which create it. If the statute limits the time within which an appeal can be preferred, it has to be preferred within the period so limited. These are the observations made by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deen Dayal v. ITAT reported in 1986 (156) ITR - 391 . 8. The above discussions show that on the expiry of the period of six months, the right to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
