TMI Blog1974 (10) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced by him on the powerlooms licensed in the names of different persons and removed without payment of Central Excise duty from the manufacturing premises in contravention of Rules 9, 43, 47, 48, 52, 52A, 53 and 54 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; and to pay the duty amounting to ₹ 46-50 at the appropriate effective standard rate under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, on 118 sq. metres of cotton fabrics manufactured by him on the powerlooms standing in the name of Smt. Aminabai M. Vakil and stored in an unapproved premises for eventual disposal without payment of duty in contravention of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; and also a personal penalty of ₹ 250 was imposed on him under the said Rule 9(2) for manufacturing cott ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the duty as well as the penalty came to be passed by the respondent No. 3 by his order dated May 4, 1967. In spite of the show cause notice, the petitioner did not file any written statement nor did he appear before respondent No. 3 to give his explanation or to show cause, and therefore, the said ex parte order against the petitioner was passed by the respondent No. 3 on May 4, 1967. This order was served on the petitioner by registered post on May 5, 1967. Thereafter, waiting for three months, on August 5, 1967, the petitioner, sent by registered post an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise which was received by him on August 7, 1967, that is, three days after the expiry of the limitation of three months prescribed under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the petitioner to deposit the amount of ₹ 1,16,514.99 P. recoverable from him under the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Kolhapur. The petitioner again move in the matter by applying for stay to the Revenue Collector as well as by approaching the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, but ultimately on September 15, 1969, he was informed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India that his case was disposed of by the Government s order dated January 17, 1969 which was already communicated to him. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this Special Civil Application challenging the aforesaid order passed against him on January 17, 1969. * * * * 4. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Holding that the appeal was time barred. 5. Then the question arises as to whether the appellate authority is competent in law to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Here again, neither in Section 35 nor in any other provision of the Act or rules framed thereunder, there is any provision which empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay in preferring appeals. In the absence of such a provision, the Collector of Central Excise would have no power to condone the delay. Reference was made to Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and it was urged that the Collector could have condoned the delay by calling for an explanation from the petitioner, and on being satisfied that there was reasonable cause for preferring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
