9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [ 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] , Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case, where there is a provision of condonation of delay, but subject to a cap of 30 days. Dealing with this cap, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases, where such condonation of delay is provided, there is a complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore factual matrix in Singh Enterprises and case on hand mirror each other. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.No.16120 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Suresh For the Respondent : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate(Taxes) ORDER Mr.P.Suresh, learned counsel on record, for the sole writ petitioner is before this Court. Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) accepts notice on behalf of the sole respondent. To be noted, the sole respondent is an official respondent. 2. This matter is listed under the caption 'FOR ADMISSION' in the Motion List. However, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brevity]. Vide the impugned order, the Appellate Authority, who is sole respondent in instant writ petition, before this Court rejected the writ petitioner's statutory appeal on two grounds. One ground is that the writ petitioner has filed the appeal only with a photo copy of the original order under appeal i.e., original order that is being assailed in Appeal and had not enclosed the original assessment order. The second ground is more important and that ground is that the delay in filing the appeal that was sought to be condoned is beyond the scope of the respondent. f) Assailing the aforesaid order i.e., impugned order, instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for writ petitioner, brought to the notice of this Court an order made by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 23.04.2015 made in W.P.No.12054 of 2015, to say that in a similar matter, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal beyond the permissible limitation cap i.e., permissible condonation period. 5. Learned Revenue counsel, who had accepted notice, brought to the notice of this Court that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order passed by the appropriate authority under section 22,section 24, section 26, sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 27, section 28, section 29, section34 or sub-section (2) of section 40 other than an order passed by an Assistant Commissioner(Assessment) may, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the order was served on him, in the manner prescribed, appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction: Provided that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, within a further period of thirty days admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the first mentioned period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the first mentioned period: 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that the period of limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal is 30 days and the Appellate Authority has power to admit an appeal, presented after the expiry of the period of 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown subject to the rider that it is within a further period of 30 days. In other words, in very simple terms, the time period prescribed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days' period.' (Underlining made by me to supply emphasis and to highlight) 11. The other case law referred to by learned Revenue counsel is Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and another, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791. 12. To be noted, Hongo India Private Limited had been rendered by the Larger Bench i.e., by a three member Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 13. Hongo India Private Limited turns on Section 35H of Central Excise Act. 14. Section 35H of the Central Excise Act provides for a reference to the High Court within 180 days from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 15. Considering the importance and significance, this Court deems it appropriate to extract 35H of Central Excise Act, which reads as follows: '35H Application to High Court. -(1) The Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party may, within one hundred and eighty days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
