9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 1458 - HC - Central ExciseRejection of appeal on the ground that the Tribunal had no statutory power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT - It is to be noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein as the same had been filed after an inordinate delay of about three years. As held in the judgement of the Supreme court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex. Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT the appeal is required to be filed within the period as provided under the Act and there is no application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 to such appeals. In light of the same the Supreme Court has held that no power exists with the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal to condone the said delay. Since the present appeal is with regard to the limitation period it cannot be intervened in the matter in any manner. The explanation of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was suffering from Tuberculosis though may give rise to a right in equity but the same cannot percolate to right under the statute. Appeal dismissed.
The Allahabad High Court, in an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, upheld the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order rejecting the appellant's appeal for delay in filing. The Tribunal held it had "no statutory power to condone the delay" before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal due to a three-year delay. Citing the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), the Court reaffirmed that "the appeal is required to be filed within the period as provided under the Act" and that "no power exists with the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal to condone the said delay." The appellant's equitable plea based on illness was held insufficient to override statutory limitation. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
|
