TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi by which he had rejected the appellants appeal as time-barred. 2. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned consultant appears for the appellants and submits that the Assistant Collector order in this case was received by them on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Gopal Prasad further submits that the time taken by them in pursuing the case before High Court and Supreme Court should be excluded while calculating the time limit. 3. Heard Smt. V. Zutshi, the learned SDR on behalf of the department. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned consultant and the learned SDR, we find in this case that the Assistant Collector s orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling appeal after the initial period of three months only to a maximum period of another 3 months; that is total of 6 months. The statute does not give any discretion thereafter to the Collector (Appeals) to condone the delay. When such is the legal position the argument that the Collector (Appeals) ought to have sought their explanation for the delay before rejecting the appeal as time-barred do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection in order of the Supreme Court that the period spent in pursuing the remedy before the courts is to be excluded for purposes of limitation. Therefore in these circumstances, and in view of the legal position when the Appellate Authority constituted under statute has not been vested with any power to condone delay of more than 3 months, the rejection of the appeal as time-barred is correct. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
