9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand against the assessee. The assessee did not choose to file an appeal within the period of limitation. They filed the appeal beyond the condonable limit of delay as stipulated under proviso to Section 35 (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal No. 186/2003-C.E. dated 25-6-2003 noted that the appeal had been filed beyond the condonable period and hence the appeal was rejected. The appellants took up the matter to the Tribunal and the Tribunal by Final Order No. 1432/2004 dated 31-8-2004 noted that the Commissioner did not have powers to condone the delay under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the appeal had been filed before the Commissioner beyond the statutory period a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel fairly submits that the powers to rectify the mistake in orders, is only vested with the Tribunal against the final orders under the provisions of! Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He refers to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and contends that there is inherent power to any adjudicating authority to recall and correct the order. He prays for direction to the Original authority to rectify his order. 5. The learned SDR opposes the prayer and submits that in case the assessee's prayer is accepted, then in such a situation, the assessee ought to have filed their representation before the Original authority for rectification of mistake within a reasonable period but the letter had been fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-Op. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.)] has laid down that when no period of limitation is prescribed under any statute then the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within the reasonable period. In this case, the Central Excise Act does not lay down any provisions for rectification of mistake in the orders passed by the Original authority and the first appellate authority, namely Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the application filed by the assessee after a lapse of two years could not have been considered by the Original authority even in terms of the cited Supreme Court judgment. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is rejected. (Pronounced and dictat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
