9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kunal Bahri, Adv., Mr. Kul Bharat, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. And Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Yadav, Adv. and Mr. M.P. Devanath, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER A short question which arises for determination in this Special Leave Petition is: whether the High Court was entitled to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the Refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proper particularly when the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be compared with the statutory authority of the Commissioner under Section 35 of the 1944 Act. At the very outset, it may be stated that in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd., reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 337, a Division Bench of this Court has opined in a similar case that the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Punjab Fibres Ltd. (supra). Firstly, it may be noted that we are concerned with the jurisdiction of the High Court and not the authority of the Commissioner to condone the delay. The Reference Application was required to be made by the Commissioner to the High Court. It was not required to be made to the authority under the Act. The powers of the High Court were not circumscribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
