9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally provides for the limitation and 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. Accordingly, one cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the aforesaid provision. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. ANR. [ 2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] , the Supreme Court has reiterated its stand and held 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 aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the petitioner itself. It is further to be noted that the order cancelling the registration was passed even earlier on January 22, 2021 and had been uploaded on the portal. As there is no dispute with regard to communication of the order and the fact that the appeal was filed beyond the time prescribed, this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction cannot interfere with the appellate authority's order as the application of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to Section 107 of the Act. 5. The Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others reported in (2008) 3 SCC 70, while dealing with a similar issue as in the present case, has held as under: 8. The Commissioner of Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 6. In Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited and Another reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791, the Supreme Court has reiterated its stand and held as under: 31. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Punjab Fibres Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 73] The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida was the appellant in this case. While considering the very same question, namely, whether the High Court has power to condone the delay in presentation of the reference under Section 35-H(1) of the Act, the two-J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
