9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. When S.L.P.(c) No. 14467 of 2007 came up for hearing on 4.12.2008, a two- Judge Bench, after noticing the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida (2008) 3 SCC 73, expressed doubt about the said judgment with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of condoning delay beyond the prescribed period under the Act. After finding that under Section 35H of the unamended Act (before enactment of Act 49/2005), with regard to application for reference, the High Court exercises its advisory jurisdiction in a case where the substantial question of law of public importance arise, the said Bench directed the matter to be heard by larger Bench. In this way, all the above mentioned matters arising from the judgments of the Allahabad High Court on identical issue posted before this Bench for determining the question, namely, "whether the High Court in the reference application under Section 35H (1) of the unamended Act, has power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the main statute i.e., Central Excise Act." 3. In all these thre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise or other party within a period of 180 days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Section 35C direct the Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal. Here again as per sub-section (1), application for reference is to be made to the High Court within 180 days and there is no provision to extend the period of limitation for filing the application to the High Court beyond the said period and to condone the delay. 9. In these three appeals, we are concerned with "reference application" made to the High Court under Section 35H (1) of the Act before amendment of Central Excise Act by Act 49/2005 (w.e.f. 28.12.2005) by which several provisions of the Act were omitted including Section 35H. However, in view of the reference made it is but proper to consider the question referred before us. Admittedly in all these matters, the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise approached the High Court by way of reference application beyond the prescribed period of 180 days. The High Court of Allahabad, with reference to the scheme of the Act and in the absence of specific provision for appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner 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 35C passed before the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment), by application in the prescribed form, accompanied, where the application is made by the other party, by a fee of two hundred rupees, apply to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal." Except providing a period of 180 days for filing reference application to the High Court, there is no other clause for condoning the delay if reference is made beyond the said prescribed period. We have already pointed out that in the case of appeal to the Commissioner, Section 35 provides 60 days time and in addition to the same, Commissioner has power to condone the delay up to 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown. Likewise, Section 35B provides 90 days time for filing appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and sub-section (5) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The question which arose for consideration in that case was whether provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to an application challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In that case, award was filed by the appellant-Union of India in the Bombay High Court on 29.3.1999. The appellant filed an application challenging the award on 19.4.1999 under Section 30 read with Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Subsequently, the application was amended by inserting the words "Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996" in place of "Arbitration Act, 1940". The application was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 26.10.1999 on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The Division Bench rejected the appeal and upheld the findings of the learned single Judge. The said order was challenged in this Court. Though learned counsel for the appellant relied on the said decision in support of his claim, on perusal of the same, we are unable to concur with him. In paragraph 12, this Court held that as far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only lie". After finding that Letters Patent is not an enactment, it is the charter of the High Court, this Court found that a non-obstante clause of this nature cannot cover the charter of the High Court. By pointing out Section 54 it was contended that the said Act provides for only one statutory appeal to the High Court and then a further appeal to this Court. In other words, it was submitted that on a plain reading of Section 54, it is clear that a Letters Patent Appeal would not lie against a judgment passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal under Section 54. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the other side submitted that a Letters Patent Appeal would lie. Accepting the said contention, this Court concluded that Section 26 of the said Act provides that every award shall be a decree and the statement of grounds of every award shall be a judgment. By virtue of the Letters Patent "an appeal" against the judgment of a Single Judge of a High Court would lie to a Division Bench. Section 54 of the said Act does not exclude an appeal under the Letters Patent. It was clarified that the word "only" occurring immediately after the non-obstante clause in Section 54 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions in the enactment and in the light of the scheme of the Act, particularly in this case, Sections 35, 35B, 35EE, 35G and 35H of the unamended Central Excise Act, it would not be possible to hold that in spite of the above-mentioned statutory provisions, the High Court is free to entertain reference application even after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days. 17. The other decision relied on is M.M. Thomas vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 1 SCC 666. This case arose out of the vesting of all private forests in the State of Kerala on the appointed day (10.05.1971) under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It is true that in para 14 it was held that the High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge used in Sections 35, 35B, 35EE, 35G and 35H makes the position clear that an appeal and reference to the High Court should be made within 180 days only from the date of communication of the decision or order. In other words, the language used in other provisions makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days. Even otherwise, for filing an appeal to the Commissioner, and to the Appellate Tribunal as well as revision to the Central Government, the legislature has provided 60 days and 90 days respectively, on the other hand, for filing an appeal and reference to the High Court larger period of 180 days has been provided with to enable the Commissioner and the other party to avail the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
