Limitation and substantial question of law: concurrent factual findings defeated interference with a time-barred tax appeal.

An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was found not to raise any substantial question of law where the assessee's earlier appeal had been rejected as time-barred. The lower authorities had recorded concurrent findings on limitation, and the explanation that the receiving employee had left service was treated as a question of fact. The text notes that no power existed to condone delay beyond thirty days after expiry of the appeal period, and no independent legal question justifying interference was shown. The challenge to the dismissal of the time-barred appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 raised any substantial question of law where the assessee's appeal had been rejected as time-barred and the lower authorities had recorded concurrent findings on limitation.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the dismissal of the assessee's case on the ground that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and that no power existed to condone delay beyond thirty days after expiry of the appeal period. The explanation that the employee who received the order had left service was treated as a question of fact, and the two authorities below had reached concurrent satisfaction on the issue. No independent legal question requiring interference was shown.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the dismissal of the time-barred appeal was rejected.

---