TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself, which alone should govern the several matters provided by it, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the view that the delay which is beyond the statutory period of limitation, cannot be condoned. Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition and the same are dismissed - Decided against assessee. - WP No. 6608 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2015 - S. Vaidyanathan,J. For the Appellant : Mr K Jayachandran For the Respondent : Mr V Sundareswaran ORDER The Writ Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side and perused the materials placed on record. 4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 1085 days. It is to be noted that under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, the appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) was to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order and as per the proviso to Section 85(3), a further period of three months could be granted where sufficient cause was shown. The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone such abnormal delay. 5. In a similar matter, while considering the delay in filing appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, which is pari materia to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, this Court in the order dated 4.3.2015 made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act ) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court has held in para 3 to 37 as under: 35. It was contended before us that the words expressly excluded would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .... 10. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the categoric pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned decisions, holding that when the scheme of the special law which herein in this case is the Customs Act and the nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself, which alone should govern the several matters provided by it, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act, this Court is of the view that the delay which is beyond the statutory period of limitation, cannot be condoned. 6. In view of the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
