9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 30 days in filing the appeal and learned Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by law - petition dismissed. - WPT No. 124 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2018 - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal For the Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Maneesh Sharma and Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate ORDER 1. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals), by order dated 14.03.2014, dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner's appeal is barred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days.] 6. The aforesaid provision clearly provides that the Appellate Authority can condone the delay up to 30 days at the most. Therefore, if the appeal is not filed beyond 90 days, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. In the instant case, the petitioner has received the copy of order of appeal on 31.01.2013 and he filed appeal on 09.10.2013 it is beyond the period of 90 days and, therefore, it has rightly been dismissed by the appellate authority. 7. In the matter of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of 30 days' period. 8. The aforesaid decision has been followed with approval again by Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida (2008) 3 SCC 73 Goodearth Steels (P) Ltd v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
