9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed. In fact, the appellant himself had filed for and was granted bail by the High Court. The facts that the appellant was the only son and that he was afraid for safety of his parents also do not explain why an appeal was not filed within time. If the appellant was involved in a criminal case and had to spend time in jail, he would have had access to lawyers. To say that he was not aware that there was a legal remedy against the order of the Assistant Commissioner is unbelievable. At any rate, neither Section 35 of the Central Excise Act nor Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 provide for condonation of delay in filing appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond one month. The impugned order is correct and proper in dismissing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E Jamshedpur [ 2008(221) ELT 163 (SC) ] holding that the statutory limitation for filing appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35 of the Central Excise Act and the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Bengal Investments Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner (TARC) Service Tax-I [ 2016 (42) STR, 817 (Cal) ] holding that the statutory limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act must be strictly construed. 3. The appeal is on various grounds on merits. As far as the limitation is concerned, the only plea in the appeal is that the appellant was in Meerut jail for 796 days from 23.5.2017 to 30.5.2019. Another 234 days was explained on the ground that the appellant is the only son and always under mentally fear for the life and safety ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or order (1) passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) [hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals)] within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order : Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. Every appeal under this section shall be in the prescribed (2) form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. 7 . It is to be noted that the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 9 . Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, I.T.C. s case (supra) to contend that the High Court and this Court in appropriate cases condoned the delay on sufficient cause being shown. 10 . Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
