TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity and if not possible, could it have been dealt with granting relief by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the only question. Referring to Singh Enterprises [ 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT ], it was held that the Apex Court was considering the scope and ambit of sufficient cause found in the various statutes and thereby to consider to give effect to the statutory provision made for limitation. It was further observed that the question as to whether the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 affects the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for exercise of the constitutional power or not was not considered by the Apex Court. It is true that some of the High Courts, including this Court, at times, have considered the question with reference to the 'extraordinary circumstances', to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit as mentioned above. The learned Single Judge specifically noted that the reason for the delay of 253 days in filing the appeal offered by the writ petitioner was that after passing of the assessment order, the Appellant/Petitioner was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e alongwith Shri Gagan Gupta, Shri Abhinit Das And Shri Romir S. Goyal, Advocates. For the Respondent : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. C.A.V. JUDGMENT PER P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Whether the interference declined to entertain the merit of the case by the statutory authorities and also by a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the appeals/writ petitions for the reason that the appeal was filed beyond the maximum time limit stipulated under the statute even after the condonable extent of delay, is correct or not is the question mooted for consideration in these appeals. 2. The thrust of the argument is that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is quite wider enough to extend the relief with regard to the merit involved and that the technical ground of delay cannot be a bar in this regard. 3. Four different appeals arise from four different proceedings, all of which were dealt together by the learned Single Judge by passing a common judgment dismissing the writ petitions. Writ Appeal No. 265 of 2019 is treated as the lead case, as suggested by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holding that there was no power to condone the said extent of delay and as a natural consequence, the appeal as well. 7. The Appellants moved the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ( for short 'the Tribunal ') challenging the course and proceedings finalised by the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner (Appeals) also pointing out that the merit was squarely covered in favour of the Appellant and that the delay had to be condoned in view of the reasons specifically stated for the delay. However, the appellate authority also took the very same stand as taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeals came to be dismissed in view of the inordinate delay beyond the extent as specified in the statute, thus, without entertaining the merits. This made the Appellants to approach this Court by filing writ petitions referring to the sequence of events and trying to explain the delay, particularly in connection with the demise of the mother of the authorised signatory and also with reference to the unforeseen situations resulted in connection with the marriage of the daughter of the deponent and also the registration of a crime in connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this regard has been explained by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) v. Union of India Others ; {(2015) 326 ELT532 : (2015) 3 KLT 30} and that the relevant statutory provision dealt with thereof is virtually identical to Section 85(3A) of the Act, 1994. The said decision stands in favour of the Appellant, and hence, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be interdicted. Reliance is also sought to be placed on several other verdicts; viz ; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal ; (2014) 1 SCC 603; Raja Mechanical Company (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I ; (2012) 279 ELT 481; State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others ; (2005) 3 SCC 752; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kasturi Sons ; (1999) 3 SCC 346; Uma Textiles Processors v. Union of India ; (2013) 290 ELT 214; The Food Inspector, Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore v. M. Gopalan ; (1991) AIR (Kerala) 240; M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise ; {(2015) 319 ELT 373 : (2015) 7 SCC 58}; Central Industrial Security Force v. Commissioner of CGST C. Ex. ; (2018) 14 GSTL 198; Sai Rolling Mill, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said context by the learned Single Judge who categorically held that the reason/explanation offered could never be taken to infer that it was an 'extraordinary case'. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court has already held as per judgment dated 29.11.2018 in TAXC No. 19 of 2017 that when the particular statute stipulates the time for filing appeal mentioning the parameters, the provisions of other statutes cannot be looked into, nor is it possible to make any comparative analysis. Reliance is sought to be placed on paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the said judgment. 11. The above discussion leads to the core question as to the scope of Section 85(3A) of the Act, 1994, the extent and power to condone the delay under the said provision and the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of the discretionary/extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For convenience of reference, Section 85(3A) of the Act, 1994 is extracted below: 85. (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 the Finance Bill, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Referring to Singh Enterprises ( supra ), it was held that the Apex Court was considering the scope and ambit of sufficient cause found in the various statutes and thereby to consider to give effect to the statutory provision made for limitation. It was further observed that the question as to whether the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 affects the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for exercise of the constitutional power or not was not considered by the Apex Court. In paragraph 28, the Bench observed as follows: 28. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur and Others, (2008) 1 CLT 709 : (2008) 124 ECC 1 : (2008) 150 ECR 1 : (2008) 221 ELT 163 : (2007) 14 SCALE 610 : (2008) 3 SCC 70 : (2008) 12 VST 542 : (2008) AIR SCW 1461 : (2007) 8 Supreme 533, which has, been relied upon by the learned counsel Mrs. Parikh, the Apex Court was considering the scope and ambit of sufficient cause found in the various statutes and thereby to consider to give the effect of statutory provision made for limitation. In the said case, the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the so-called extraordinary situation pressed by the Petitioner was not of such nature which had paralyzed the Petitioner's business or his life and that admittedly, he was carrying on his business during the relevant period. Hence, according to the learned Judge, there was no pressing emergency which did not permit the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on time. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interdicted as unsustainable under any circumstances. 16. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submits that the learned Single Judge considered only 'one' of the two grounds raised and with reference to the extraordinary circumstance that there was another ground in relation to the demise of the mother of the Petitioner as specifically pleaded in the writ petition. This, however, was omitted to be considered and hence requires interference. 17. We asked a specific question whether such a ground pleaded/stated was ever argued before the learned Single Judge, to which the learned Senior Counsel fairly submitted that he was not aware, as a different counsel was dealing with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the Supreme Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. 19. The above provision stipulates that the statutory remedy against the verdict of the Appellate Tribunal was to be by way of an appeal to be preferred before the Supreme Court within 60 days from the date of communication of the order; with a proviso to have the delay, if at all any , to be condoned within a further period not exceeding 60 days. The scope of the said provision was considered with reference to the various rulings rendered by the Apex Court on the point, particularly, in Chhattisgarh SEB v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ; (2010) 5 SCC 23, the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Singh Enterprises ( supra ) sought to be relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
