TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs, it would certainly have been provided for the same when the provision was amended - In the result we dismiss the ROM application as time-barred - It goes without saying that the application for condonation of delay also stands dismissed. - E/2671/1999 - M/287-288/2009-WZB/C-II/(EB) - Dated:- 6-3-2009 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, A.K. Srivastava, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri H.C. Daruwalla, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.M. Vaidya, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. We are called upon to deal with two applications, one for rectification of mistake in our final order dated 12-8-2004 passed in the captioned appeal and the other for condonation of delay of the said application. The ROM applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a plethora of decisions. In the case of Vijay Brothers and Others v. Union of India and three Others - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 51 (P H), the Hon ble High Court applied Section 14 of the Limitation Act in computing the period taken for appeal filed by the party with the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act. In the case of Vikshara Trading Investment Ltd. v. Union of India - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 147 (Guj.), the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, allowed the party to apply to the Tribunal for condonation of delay of ROM application filed against a final order passed by the Tribunal. In the case of Pasupati Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in final order passed by the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act is six months and that the legislature, in its wisdom, did not provide for condonation of any delay beyond this period. In this context, the learned JCDR has also referred to the High Court s judgment in D.R. Industries Limited v. Union of India - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 24 (Guj.) wherein the restrictive amendment to Section 35(1), which laid down that a Commissioner (Appeals) could condone delay up to 30 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation, was upheld and it was held that there was nothing unreasonable on the part of Parliament in restricting the scope of the power of condonation of delay of appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to the submissions, we find that the ROM application is, admittedly, beyond the period of six months prescribed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. There is no provision under Section 35C for condonation of any delay beyond the said period of six months, which legal position is also not in dispute. The question is whether, for computing the period of six months, Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be applied. The learned counsel has cited certain cases wherein Section 14 was applied. In one case (Vijay Brothers and Others), the provision was applied in respect of an appeal filed under Section 123 of the Customs Act. In that case, it appears, the appellant spent some time in prosecuting legal proceedings und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period of limitation for filing appeals under statutory provisions, which inter alia prescribed power for the appellate authority to condone the delay of appeal. In this scenario, we do not think that the principles laid down by the apex Court in the case of Mst. Katiji and Others (supra) for dealing with delay condonation applications will be applicable to the instant case wherein Section 35C(2) did not provide for any power for the Tribunal to condone any delay of an application filed thereunder for rectification of mistake in a final order. 8. The decision of the High Court in Delta Impex (supra), is to the effect that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay of appeal beyond the condonable period prescribed under Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of law. Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act does not provide for condonation of delay of ROM applications beyond the period of 6 months prescribed therein. It is pertinent to note, in this context, that the period of limitation prescribed under the above provision was four years prior to 2002, which was reduced by Parliament to six months under Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002. Had it been the intention of the legislature to allow the appellants to seek condonation of any delay beyond the above period of six months, it would certainly have been provided for the same when the provision was amended. 10. In the result we dismiss the ROM application as time-barred. It goes without saying that the application for condonation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
