9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e barred on account of the same having been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, without going into the merits of the appeal and also without going into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds put forward by the appellant seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of revision under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before the Central Government but that revision was also dismissed vide its order dated 22-11-1982, without going into the merits, holding that the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal at the threshold on account of the bar of limitation. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the aforesaid orders passed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority on the grounds: that the appeal filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected without going into the question of sufficiency of the cause shown by the petitioner seeking condonation of the short delay of about 11 days in filing the appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by First Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that 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. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Section 29(2), Indian Limitation Act, 1963 therefore, governs cases where a special law prescribes a period of limitation different from the period prescribed under the said Limitation Act. The period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which is a special law, being an Act dealing with a particular subject and creating a special jurisdiction, is different from the period prescribed under the aforesaid Limitation Act. Thus, all the ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 29, Limitation Act stand satisfied in the present case and the provisions contained in Section 5 of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l law by virtue of Section 29(2) thereof and it was only if, the special or local law expressly excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act that it would stand displaced. 10. The above legal position however, can be of no avail to the petitioner. It has to be noticed in this connection that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act contains a provision for extension of prescribed period of limitation in certain cases if the court is satisfied about the sufficiency of the cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. It is obvious, therefore, that the proceedings referred to in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act are proceedings before a court. If we examine the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the provisions contained therein it will be apparent that the authorities contemplated therein are instrumentalities of the State and are not a part of the judiciary. Their functions are the assessment and collection of the excise duty and in the process of the assessment of the duties envisaged under the Act they followed a pattern of action which may be considered judicial. However, these authorities are not thereby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree months. The proviso added to Section 35 is as follows:- "Provided that the Collector (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months." 14. It may further be noticed that although the Finance Act had come into force on 21-8-1980 the notification specifying the date from which the amendment was to come into force was issued by the Central Government vide the Notification SSR No. 597 (E), dated 11-10-1982 and it was with effect from that date that the aforesaid proviso became effective. 15. In the present case the appeal had been filed on 28-5-1979. It was decided on 21-8-1979 by the Appellate Collector of Central Excises, New Delhi. Against the said order a revision under Section 36 of the Act was filed on 12-6-1982 which was dismissed on 22-11-1982. Thus it is apparent that the proviso had come into force during the pendency of the proceedings in shape of revision before the Central Government. 16. The proviso referred to above which was added to Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be retrospective in operation and the petitioner was entitled to its benefit and the hearing of the appeal on merits in case the cause for not presenting the appeal within time was held to be sufficient. 20. The present writ petition had been filed on 28-2-1983. By an order of the same date passed on the stay application, the respondents had been restrained from realising a sum of Rs. 17,464.07 P. short levy in pursuance of the order dated 24-11-1977 passed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, M.O.R.I., Mirzapur subject to certain conditions. The aforesaid stay order was confirmed on 30-11-1983. The petitioner had given an explanation for the delay of about 11 days in filing the appeal and had asserted that the relevant records files etc., were not available as they were at Allahabad in connection with the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 644-C of 1979-E. Sefton . Co. Private Limited pending in the High Court. The assertions made by the petitioner in connection with the condonation of delay in filing the appeal had not been controverted in any manner before the Appellate Authority by the Department. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to indicate that any objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
