1976 (4) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llector Excise, Madras, dismissing the appeal preferred by it against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Hyderabad Division II, as barred by limitation. Mr. Jogayya Sarma,. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal involves a question relating to the fundamental rights of the petitioner, and in the circumstances, the appellate authority should have construed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... early as 5-4-1971. An appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras, is provided, which has to be filed within three months from the date of the service of the order sought to be appealed against. Hence, the petitioner should have preferred the appeal within 3 months from 5-4-1971 to the Appellate Collector, Central Excise Mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lector of Central Excise, Madras, cannot be held to be a court for applying the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act. See Nityanand v. L.l.C. of India (AlR 1970 S.C. 209). I may add that under similar circumstances, a Learned Judge of this Court in writ petition 2207 of 1972 has taken the same view. This writ petition must fail on this ground alone. However, on a consideration of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X