9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Jamshedpur [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied where specific power has been conferred upon a particular authority under a statute to condone delay. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, being time specific in nature and taking into consideration the admitted fact that the appellant (being the writ petitioner herein) presented the appeal beyond the outer time limit as provided un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers ...... Here again, there is no dispute about the above proposition. The High Courts in India are having inherent and plenary powers and as a Court of Record the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. However, the said principle has to be decided with the specific provisions in the enactment and in the light of the scheme of the Act, particularly in this case, Sections 35, 35B, 35EE, 35G and 35H of the unamended Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided sufficient time, namely, 180 days for filing reference to the High Court which is more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision. Although, not in the context of the relevant statute, namely, the Central Excise Act, 1944, in a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of our High Court, in Union of India vs. Jagadish Prasad Jalan, reported in 2012 (4) CHN (CAL) 1, it has been observed, inter alia, to the effect that a High Court cannot condone delay even for a single day exceeding the statutory period, since the High Court was not conferred with such power and if there was no power conferred, question of granting relief did not arise. Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied where specific power has been conferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
