9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths and no other Authority could have condoned the said delay. The Tribunal also has no authority to condone this delay. The Chief Commissioner has no authority to condone such delay or permit the committee of Commissioners to review the order beyond a stipulated period of three months. The provisions for review are to be construed very strictly as has been held by various authorities including the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS MM RUBBER CO. [ 1991 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein it was held that the period of one year fixed under sub- section (3) of Section 35E of the Act should be given its literal meaning and so construed the impugned direction of the Board was beyond the period of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority. [Provided that the Board may, on sufficient cause being shown, extend the said period by another thirty days.] (4)------------------ 2. It is seen that as per proviso to Sub-Section (3) only the Board has power to condone the delay in reviewing the order beyond three Months and no other Authority could have condoned the said delay. The Tribunal also has no authority to condone this delay. 3. From the provisions of act reproduced above, we are of the view that the Chief Commissioner has no authority to condone such delay or permit the committee of Commissioners to review the order beyond a stipulated period of three months. The provisions for review are to be construed very strictly as has been held by various authorities inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Act correctly and properly. Where a time is limited for the purposes by the statute, such power, as under Section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 referred to in Muthia Chettiar (supra), should be exercised within the specified period from the date of the order sought to be reconsidered. To hold to the contrary would be inequitable and will also introduce uncertainties into the administration of the Act for the following reason. There appears to be no provision in the Act requiring the endorsement, by a Collector, of all orders passed by him to the Board. If there is such a practice in fact or requirement in law, the period of one year from the date of the order is more than adequate to ensure action in appropriate cases p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
