9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on: Machhiwara Sahib, District Ludhiana, Punjab. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal under Section 68 (O) of the NDPS Act on 20.09.2023 before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide the Impugned Order dated 21.11.2023 on the short ground of limitation. 3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract 68 (O) of the NDPS Act which reads as under: "68-O. Appeals.-- (1) [Any officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 68E or any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority] made under section 68F, section 68-I, sub-section (1) of section 68K or section 68L, may, within forty-five days from the date on which the order is served on him, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the said period of forty-five days, but not after sixty days, from the date aforesaid if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, if he so desires, and after making such furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." 6. The aforesaid issue has been settled by various Judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 23, has observed as under: "25. Section 125 lays down that any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Tribunal can file an appeal to this Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal. Proviso to Section 125 empowers this Court to entertain an appeal filed within a further period of 60 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal within the initial period of 60 days. This shows that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. While rejecting the argument, the three-Judge Bench observed: (SCC p. 146, para 17) "17. ... what we have to see is whether the scheme of the special law, that is in this case the Act, and the nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our view, even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation." (emphasis supplied) 29. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is substantially similar to Section 125 of the Electricity Act came to be interprete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the 1940 Act, after the time to set aside the award expired, the court was required to 'proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow' (Section 17). Now the consequence of the time expiring under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is that the award becomes immediately enforceable without any further act of the court. If there were any residual doubt on the interpretation of the language used in Section 34, the scheme of the 1996 Act would resolve the issue in favour of curtailment of the court's powers by the exclusion of the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act." (emphasis supplied) 30. In Singh Enterprises v. CCE [(2008) 3 SCC 70] the Court interpreted Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is pari materia to Section 125 of the Electricity Act and observed: (SCC p. 72, para 8) "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been provided. However, in the case of an appeal to the High Court under Section 35-G and reference application to the High Court under Section 35-H, Parliament has provided only 180 days and no further period for filing an appeal and making reference to the High Court is mentioned in the Act. *** 32. As pointed out earlier, the language used in Sections 35, 35-B, 35-EE, 35-G and 35-H 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. *** 35. It was contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be called in question in any Court, and save as is provided in the said Chapter, no appeal shall lie against any such order." has held as under: "10. It was argued that in the absence of any provision expressly excluding the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, those sections were applicable qua revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the VAT Act and, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also applicable to such proceedings. To placate his aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mangu Ram v. MCD [Mangu Ram v. MCD, (1976) 1 SCC 392 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 10]. In that case, special leave petitions were filed against the condonation of delay to the application for grant of special leave under Section 417 CrPC, 1898 against acquittal of the petitioners by the trial court, in spite of the mandatory period of limitation provided in sub-section (4) of Section 417. Question arose whether in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh [Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh, (1964) 4 SCR 982 : AIR 1964 SC 260 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 152] , which held Section 417 CrPC, 1898 a special law and excluded application of Section 5 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 12 [Ed.: Para 12 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./1/2017 dated 13-1-2017.] . Mr Nalin Kohli, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the High Court had exhaustively dealt with the issue and rightly found that since Section 84 of the VAT Act confined the applicability of the Limitation Act only in respect of Sections 4 and 12 thereof to the proceedings under the said Chapter, by necessary implication the other provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 including Section 5 thereof stood excluded. He submitted that for the purpose of finding whether other provisions are excluded or not, the focus should be on the scheme of the special law as laid down in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra [Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133] wherein it was held that even if there exists no express exclusion in the special law, the Court has right to examine the provisions of the special law to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the legislative intent was to exclude the operation of the Limitation Act. According to him, Section 84 of the VAT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommr. of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791] was that in the absence of any such power, the High Court did not have power to condone the delay. In that case also, the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 were pressed into service. But this argument was rejected in the following manner: (SCC p. 801, paras 30-33) "30. In the earlier part of our order, we have adverted to Chapter VI-A of the Act which provides for appeals and revisions to various authorities. Though Parliament has specifically provided an additional period of 30 days in the case of appeal to the Commissioner, it is silent about the number of days if there is sufficient cause in the case of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Also an additional period of 90 days in the case of revision by the Central Government has been provided. However, in the case of an appeal to the High Court under Section 35-G and reference application to the High Court under Section 35-H, Parliament has provided only 180 days and no further period for filing an appeal and making reference to the High Court is mentioned in the Act. 31. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a recent deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following manner: [Hongo India (P) Ltd. case [Commr. of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791], SCC p. 802, paras 34-35] "34. Though, an argument was raised based on Section 29 of the Limitation Act, even assuming that Section 29(2) would be attracted, what we have to determine is whether the provisions of this section are expressly excluded in the case of reference to the High Court. 35. It was contended before us that the words "expressly excluded" would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation." 20. Thus, the approach which is to be adopted by the Court in such cases is to examine the provisions of the special law to arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was legislative intent to exclude the operation of the Limitation Act. In the instant case, we find that Section 84 of the VAT Act made only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the VAT Act. The apparent legislative intent, which can be clearly evinced, is to exclude other provisions, including Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 29(2) stipulates that in the absence of any express provision in a special law, provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply. If the intention of the legislature was to make Section 5, or for that matter, other provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the VAT Act, there was no necessity to make specific provision like Section 84 thereby making only Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a statute, Judges have to be conscious that in the end the statute is the master not the servant of the judgment and no Judge has a choice between implementing the law and disobeying it.' [Ed.: See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edn., p. 26 by Justice G.P. Singh.] " What, therefore, follows is that the court cannot interpret the law in such a manner so as to read into the Act an inherent power of condoning the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to supplement the provisions of the VAT Act which excludes the operation of Section 5 by necessary implication." (emphasis supplied) 8. A perusal of the abovementioned judgments show that if a special Act provides for a special period of limitation then Sections 4 to 28 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable and, therefore, there is no power in the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the last date for filing the appeal had expired on 04.08.2023 and the appeal was filed on 20.09.2023 and, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal Could not have condoned the delay between 04.08.2023 and 20.09.2023. 9. It is equally well settled that the High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
