TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 35, it would render the said section as otiose and would open a flood gate of litigations. The very object of section 35 would be defeated. It would encourage the litigants to approach the High Court under the writ jurisdiction at any point of time in breach of the provisions contained in section 35. It has to be borne in mind that the law of limitation does not render the right of a litigant bad in law but it merely prohibits him from pursuing his remedy beyond a point of time. Hence, the judgments relied on behalf of the appellant are not applicable. Appeal dimsissed - Decided against the assessee. - M.A.T. 425 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2015 - SOUMITRA PAL MIR DARA SHEKO, JJ. Mr. N.K. Chowdhury, Mr. Arijit Chak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the statute does not provide the power to condone delay beyond certain limits. This Court, therefore, does not find any fault in the order of the Appellate Authority as the order-in-original has merged into it. The writ petition, therefore, fails. It appears that a writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 30th November, 2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Bolpur, whereby the demand of service tax of ₹ 12,65,335/- was confirmed, interest was charged and penalty was imposed and the noticee, the appellant herein, was directed to have service tax registration for cargo handing service. Also under challenge was the order dated 7th November, 2013 passed by the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. vs- Customs, Excise Service Tax : 2014 (305) E.L.T. 36 (Uttarakhand), Texcellence Overeseas vs- Union of India : 2013 (293) E.L.T. 496 (Guj.), Hans Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs- Union of India : 2010 (254) E.L.T. 546(All.) and D.R. Industries Ltd. Anr. vs- Union of India and Ors. 2008(229) E.L.T. 24 (Guj.),. Reliance has also been placed on an unreported judgment delivered on 27th July, 2015 in W.P. 1545 of 2008 (Andrew Yule Co. Ltd. vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol-V Commissionerate and Ors.) and also on an unreported judgment delivered on 2nd August, 2013 in W.P. 1524 of 2008 (Brishti Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. vs- Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors.) and the order passed in appeal therefrom on 21st January, 2014 in GA No. 3236 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. As seen under the Act, a fiscal statute, an appeal has to be presented within sixty days. However, an appeal can be presented beyond sixty days but within a further period of thirty days if it can be shown that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within sixty days. So, an appeal can be presented at the most within ninety days. In the instant case, the statutory appeal before the Commissioner was preferred even beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed in section 35. Hence, the Commissioner was justified in passing the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment rendered in Raj Chemicals (supra) wherein it was held Once the Legislature has laid down a period within which an appeal has to be filed and has prescribed the extent to which a delay beyond that period can be condoned, recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would stand expressly excluded within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accepting the submission of the Petitioner would completely defeat the scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In any event, the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue a direction which could command the authorities constituted under the Act to bypass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
