9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the appellate authority is not a court and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings of the appeal. This finding was reached because the petitioner sought condonation of delay of four years in filing appeal before the Collector (Appeals). It is an admitted position that the petitioner did not prefer a separate application for condonation of delay but in the body of the appeal memo itself the petitioner had prayed for condonation of delay. Shri K.B. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner Karkhana submitted that there is no specific exclusion of provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act in its application to the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus :- "5. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for no preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation :- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section." 5. It would be necessary for us to reproduce the provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act which read thus : "29. Savings - (1) Nothing in this Act shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate authority. 7. The issue as to whether the Appellate Tribunal functions as a Court and the provisions of section 5 and section 29(2) of the Limitation Act apply to the proceedings of the appeals preferred before the Appellate Tribunal is no more res integra. In the case of Navinon Ltd. v. Union of India and another - 2005 (1) Bom. C.R. 58, the Division Bench of this Court has answered these two issues. It is held by the Division Bench that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) empowered to hear appeals under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, cannot be treated as forum functioning as a Court nor the said authority can be said to have trappings of the Court. The Division Bench further held that section 29(2) of the Limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ror in not entertaining the appeals as barred by limitation prescribed under section 35 of the Central Excise Act." 9. We therefore find that no fault could be found with the view adopted by the Appellate Tribunal. Shri K.B. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, the delay for filing appeal be condoned. From the material placed on record, we do not find that the petitioner's request deserves consideration. 10. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the tribunal. The petition fails and accordingly dismissed. 11. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
