2009 (8) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity "the Act") is directed against order dated 28.12.2006, passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity "the Limitation Act") seeking condonation of 383 days in filing of the appeal has also been made by pleading various grounds. At the hearing, we have confronted learned cou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elay 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd) decided on 6.8.2009 and CEA No.23 of 2009 (Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s Rajit Paints Ltd) decided on 17.8.2009. After examining the scheme of the Act and the language used in other provisions, their Lordships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the legislature has intended the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal by condoni .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X