9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 rejecting its revision and confirming the orders of the Appellate Collector 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, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be appealed against by the petitioner was served on the petitioner as 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 wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court is not a `Court' within the Limitation Act. Hence the Appellate Collector 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
