9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1963 excluded in absence of laws condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after prescribed period.
There is no clause permitting the Tribunal to condone the delay. It is pertinent to note that Section 35C (2) has been amended with effect from 11.05.2002 vide Section 140 (i) of Act of 20 of 2002 to reduce the time limit from four years to six months for rectification of the mistake in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, the Legislature in his wisdom has fixed the time period of six months to rectify any mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal within a period of six months only, and as such the Tribunal has no power to extend the period prescribed beyond six months to entertain any application for rectification of mistake.
Conclusion - The statutory time limits are binding and cannot be extended by the Tribunal unless explicitly provided by law. The Tribunal acted within its legal bounds by rejecting the rectification application due to the delay.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03.04.2006 remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for proper quantification of the amount of duty and also penalty depending upon the duty found to be liable to be paid. 3.5 In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner passed an order in original dated 30.04.2007 confirming the demand with penalty of equal amount against the appellant firm and a personal penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also imposed on the partner of the appellant firm. 3.6 Being aggrieved, the appeal was filed before the CESTAT, who by the order dated 01.02.2008, disposed of the appeals filed by the appellants upholding the order passed by the Commissioner as regards the demand of the duty as well as penalty on the appellant firm and deleting the personal penalty imposed upon the partner of the appellant firm. The Tribunal also quashed and set aside the confiscation of various quantities of fabrics and also the properties like land, building, plant, machinery etc., 3.7 Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Tax Appeal No.1644 of 2009 before this Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The appellant, thereafter, sought the permission to withdraw the appeal for moving appropriate application se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust is only in respect of civil appeal filed by the said petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merits in the application filed by the applicant for condonation of delay and the same is rejected. Consequently, the application filed for rectification of mistake also stands dismissed." 3.10 Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal, which is admitted for consideration of the aforesaid substantial question of law. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Rachchh appearing for the appellant referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust (supra), to submit that the Tribunal ought to have exercised its inherent powers beyond the prescribed period of 180 days and the Tribunal was required to consider prima facie case of the appellant in the application for rectification of mistake, which is described in paragraph No.2 of the application for rectification of mistake to apply the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the appellant, instead of observing that the said decision was passed while exercising the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udges' records are considered to be final, it is now a trite law that when certain questions are raised before the Court of law or Tribunal but not considered by it, and when it is brought to its notice, it is the only appropriate authority to consider the question as to whether the said contentions are correct or not. 21. For the aforementioned purpose the provisions of limitation specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act would not be attracted. We, however, do not mean to lay down a law that such an application can be filed at any time. If such an application is filed within a reasonable time and if the Court or Tribunal finds that the contention raised before it by the applicant is prima-facie correct, in order to do justice, which is being above law, nothing fetters the judges hands from considering the matter on merit. 22. We may notice that this Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. - 1980 (Suppl) SCC 420, held that Industrial Tribunal has an inherent power to set aside an ex-parte award subject of course to the condition that the same has not been published in the Gazette. 23. Grindlays Bank Ltd.[s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... handani, learned senior counsel that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will have no application in view of the fact that provisions governing limitation are contained in the Customs Act. It is so for in a matter of this nature the Tribunal was required to consider the application filed by he appellant which was filed within a reasonable time. It should have also considered that the appellant had been bonafide pursuing its remedies before this Court." 4.2 Referring to the above observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was submitted that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay as in the order passed in the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the specific submission for non-supply of the relevant documents made by the appellant being lot register and R.G.-I register, which were never provided to the appellant, which had prevented the appellant from proving its case as per the directions issued by the Tribunal while remanding the matter back. 4.3 He, therefore, submitted that as the Tribunal has not followed the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust (supra), the impugned order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2007 before this Court, within the prescribed time limit under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was withdrawn on 22.07.2010. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an application for rectification of mistake after 178 days beyond the period of six months without explaining the same and there is delay of 178 days, and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that it has no power to condone the delay in filing the application for rectification of mistake as the order dated 01.02.2008 was sought to be rectified in 2011. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant at no place, in the application to condone the delay, has even prayed for exclusion of the time spent before this Court and as such, has prayed for time spent before this Court from 09.09.2008 to 22.07.2010. The reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust (supra), would not be applicable in the facts of the case as the appellant has failed to point out any mistake committed by the Tribunal apparent on the face of the record as we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal, wherein the Tribunal after re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 33. 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 same. We are of the view that the legislature provided sufficient time, namely, 180 days for filing reference to the High Court which is more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision. 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 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 specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Central Excise] or the other party to the appeal: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the other party, shall not be made under this sub-section, unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2A) The Appellate Tribunal shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of three years from the date on which such appeal is filed" 10. There is no clause permitting the Tribunal to condone the delay. It is pertinent to note that Section 35C (2) has been amended with effect from 11.05.2002 vide Section 140 (i) of Act of 20 of 2002 to reduce the time limit from four years to six months for rectification of the mistake in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, the Legislature in his wisdom has fixed the time period of six months to rectify any mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal within a period of six months only, and as such the Tribunal has no power to extend the period prescribed beyond six months to entertain any applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
