9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he is rejecting the appeal as time barred without going into merits of the matter. In this writ petition, impugned order is the order of the Appellate Authority and hence this Court will perambulate within the four corners of the grounds which were raised qua challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority. Petition dismissed. - W.P.No.22144 of 2019 And W.M.P No.21415 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For the Respondents : Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff Standing Counsel ORDER Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t portion of the concluding paragraph reads as follows: ' 06............In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that there is no dispute about the date of receipt of the impugned order and the fact of delay beyond the period of 90 days, the appeal is time barred and liable for rejection without going into merits of the case.' (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight) 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, certain dates become relevant. The order-in-original being order dated 19.12.2016 bearing reference C.No.V/17/13/2015-STC-Adj made by the second respondent was received by the writ petitioner on 22.12.2016. Therefore, writ petitioner ough ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and another, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791.' 9. Most pithy paragraphs in this regard are paragraph 8 in Singh Enterprises case and Paragraph 36 in Hongo India Private Limited case. 10. Paragraph 8 in Singh Enterprises case reads as follows: '8.The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go India Private Limited case reads as follows: ' 36. The scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 supports the conclusion that the time-limit prescribed under Section 35-H(1) to make a reference to the High Court is absolute and unextendable by a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well-settled law that it is the duty of the court to respect the legislative intent and by giving liberal interpretation, limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.' 12 . This Court also has followed the aforesaid ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 18.06.2019 made in W.P.No.16120 of 2019 [ M/s.Amman Agencies Vs.The Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
