9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been filed. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions, it will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 85 of the Act and they are as follows: "Appeals to the Section 85. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Every (2) Every appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (3) ....... (3A) An appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority, made on and after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Anantnag and another vs. Mst Katji and others reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) to contend that a liberal approach is needed for condoning the delay. This decision does not come to the aid of appellant because it was rendered in the context of section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which does not contain a restriction similar to that contained in the proviso to section (3A) of Section 85 of the Act. The Madras High Court in Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy reported in 2018 (361) ELT 643 (Mad), on which reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Mst Katji to condone the delay. This decision will als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner 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 be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icular period of limitation, this Court can direct condonation. That would render a specific provision providing for limitation rather otiose. In any event, the causes shown for condonation have no acceptable value. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. There will be no order as to costs." 5. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 which was considered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is as reproduced below: "35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals). - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) [hereafter in this Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
