2014 (11) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-G of Central Excise Act, 1944 is barred by 5 years and 113 days. 3. The appellant is challenging the orders dated 28/09/2006 and 29/06/2007. 4. Section 35-G(2) (A) of Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as under:-     (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within that period. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that financial status of the company was not good and appellant No.1 - Company was running under heavy losses and matter was sub-judice before the B.I.F.R., wherein the Company was declared as a Sick Industrial Unit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide order dated 04.03.2011 remanded the case to BIFR. A copy of the order dated 04.03.2011 is enclosed herewith.     Thereafter, BIFR vide order dated 14.01.2013 directed the appellant to submit MDRS to MPFC. A copy of the order dated 14.01.2013 is enclosed herewith.     3. That upon the sincere efforts of the Management, the Company is again trying to re-start the production. As the Company's Unit is located in a backward area, its restart would give bread and butter to the Labourers so also employment to the youths, Now, by the efforts of the government, there as been uninterruptedly and continuous power supply also.     4. That the appellant submits that this Hon'ble Court, instea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, learned counsel for the respondents submits that provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 will not be applicable. He submitted that as per amended provision of Section 35-G(2) (A) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the period as specified under the aforesaid provision can only be condoned. 8. In the present case, delay is more than 5 years and 113 days and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in para 32 of the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited & Another, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791 the delay beyond the period of 180 days cannot be condoned. Para 32 and 33 of the case of Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) are relevant which reads as under:-     32. As pointed....