9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C L Mahar, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant: Shri Arya Bhatt, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri P Juneja, AR ORDER Per: Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta: It is against the order dated 30 April, 2018 of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal for the reason that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that this appeal has been filed. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions, it will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 85 of the Act and they are as follows: Appeals to the Section 85. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).- (1) Any person aggrieved by any deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d even beyond this extended period of one month. It is for this reason, the Commissioner (Appeals), relying upon the decision of Calcutta High Court in Satish Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (328) ELT 43 (Cal), dismissed the appeal. Infact the Commissioner (Appeals) also noticed that the appellant had not given any reason for condoning the delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and another vs. Mst Katji and others reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) to contend that a liberal approach is needed for condoning the delay. This decision does not come to the aid of appellant because it was rendered in the context of section 54 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act ) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. I.T.C. s case (supra) was rendered taking note of the peculiar background facts of the case. In that case there was no law declared by this Court that even though the Statute prescribed a particular period of limitation, this Court can direct condonation. That would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. In any event, the causes shown for condonation have no acceptable value. In that view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
