2015 (4) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... thereafter he approached. In other words, the petitioner had fitter away its own remedy. Therefore alleged situation of remediless is its own creation. According to us, the provision of Section 35(1) of the Act is absolutely rigid and cannot be extended either directly or indirectly by the Court of law. - It is specific mandate that even Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by virtue of Section 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax. We have heard Sri Vedula Srinivas , learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Gopalakrishna Gokhaley , learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order the Commissioner confirmed the demand as raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also imposed penalty of ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had no power to condone the delay overriding the provision of Section 35(1) of the Act. So, that appeal was also dismissed. In the writ petition, the aforesaid two orders of the two appellate authorities are not challenged. Thus, it appears that the petitioner, after exhausting all the remedies, filed this writ petition. 2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in essence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itless, is of no legal implication, as virtually the petitioner is now remediless, so much so it can come to Writ Court. 5. We think that the petitioner keeping eyes open allowed the period for preferring the appeal as well as that of for condonation of delay allowed to expire and thereafter he approached. In other words, the petitioner had fitter away its own remedy. Therefore alleged situatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e presented within a further period of thirty days. 6. It is clear that it is specific mandate that even Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by virtue of Section 29(2) thereof, will not be applicable beyond 90 days. We are further of the view that once this period is allowed to expire intentionally or unintentionally, then remedy is absolutely barred and no Court of law can entertain the matt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X