9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/Shri P.P. Singh and M.S. Sonak with P. Rao, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mohit S. Shah, C.J. (Oral)]. Both these review applications arise from the judgment dated 12th June, 2009 of another Division Bench of this Court by which this Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay of 96 days in filing one Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the said Act ) and delay of 200 days in filing the other Appeal under Section 35-G of the said Act. The applications were dismissed on the ground that there was no provision for condonation of delay and it would not be open for this Court to take recourse to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The learned Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provides good ground for this Court to review the impugned orders by which the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, as the Appeal in question under Section 35-G of the said Act was filed after 1st day of July, 2003. In fact, the Appeal was filed in the year 2008. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent in each applications, however, oppose the applications for review and submit that at the highest, the amendment with effect from 1st day of July, 2003 empowers the High Court to condone the delay beyond the period of 180 days in proceedings which were pending on the date of enactment of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, but it would not empower this Court to review the orders, which were already passed prior to enactment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. The Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2011 (264) E.L.T. 24 (Bom.), we have no hesitation in allowing these applications. 8. As regards the reliance placed on the decision of another Division Bench in the case of CIT v. The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. reported in (2009) 319 ITR 390 (Bom), the Court there was concerned with the question about the maintainability of the review petition under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Court there was not concerned with the question of review in view of the statutory amendment with retrospective effect. 9. In the result, both the applications are allowed. The judgment dated 12th June, 2009 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 886/2008 and in Miscellaneous Civil Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
