9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - These stay applications and appeals are taken up together for the disposal as per law, as a common question of law and facts are involved in these matters. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his Orders-in-Appeal No. 95/2005 & 96/2005 both dated 6-4-2005 has dismissed the appeals on time bar stating that the appeals had been filed beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Allahabad [2002 (146) E.L.T. 273 (All.)] has held that Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not exclude Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is his submission that even though both the statutes laid down for a specific period and also not given power to the authority to condone the delay beyond the statutory period, however in terms of Sections 5 and 29(2) of Limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the power of the authority to condone the delay beyond the statutory period :- (i) HMT Ltd. v. CC, Chennai [2002 (142) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. -Bang.)] (ii) Precision Tooling Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2004 (176) E.L.T. 551 (Tri. - Bang.)] (iii) Abhishek Auto Industries v. CC, Mumbai (Import) [2003 (160) E.L.T. 695 (Tri. - Del.)] 3.&e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra) has also followed the same view. In view of the majority of the High Courts judgments holding the view that the adjudicating authority does not get power to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit, therefore, both the appeals cannot be entertained. The Tribunal cannot exercise any power where the statute has fixed a period for condonation of delay in a case where the statute has not given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
