9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e extent of the power to condone the delay is also prescribed by the statute, the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would clearly be not warranted to direct the adjudicatory or appellate authority to breach the provision for limitation. There should not be an iota of doubt about the power/jurisdiction vested either with the Commissioner (Appeals) or with the Tribunal in condoning the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days prescribed under Section 35 in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos.89565 to 89569 of 2013 - A/85910-85914/2019 - Dated:- 16-5-2019 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as submitted excluding the date of receipt and the date of filing, there is delay y of 30 days only. She submits that the said delay ought to have been condoned by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal should have been decided on merit. She has further submitted that even though it is considered that there was delay of 31 days, instead of 30 days, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay beyond the condonable period of 30 days prescribed under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944. In support, she refers to the judgment of the Tribunal in case of Yapp India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE ST Pune-I - 2019 (365) ELT 109 (Tri-Mum.), Garg Industries Vs CCE Noida - 2018 (7) TMI 1194 CESTAT Allahabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, the same is per incurium and cannot be considered as binding precedent. In support, the learned A.R. for the Revenue refers to the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Guram Kaur - (1989) 1 SCC 101. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute of the fact that the Order-in Original against which the appeals were filed on 23.08.2013 before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), had been communicated to the Appellant on 24.05.2013. Thus, excluding the date of receipt, the appeals were on the 91st day from the date of communication of the order. The appellants claim that the date of filing of the appeal be also excluded in computing the condonable period of 30 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thirty days on sufficient cause being shown to his satisfaction. In other words, the clear intent of Parliament was that the power to condone the delay can be exercised only subject to sufficient cause being shown and to an extent of an outer limit of thirty days beyond the period of sixty days prescribed for filing of an appeal. Now, it is well settled that while construing whether the special law, within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 expressly excludes the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regard must be had to the over all scheme of the Act. Where the scheme of the Act indicates that the Legislature intended that an Appellate Authority should entertain an appeal by condoning a delay up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
