Statutory time-bar and no further condonation beyond prescribed limit kept the appeals out of appellate consideration.

The proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was treated as barring any condonation of delay beyond the further period expressly permitted, so the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed after that limit. Because the appeals were admittedly beyond the prescribed period, they were time-barred and could not be admitted on sufficient cause or any other ground. The merits were therefore not examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under the statutory scheme, and whether the appeals were liable to be entertained notwithstanding the time-bar.

Analysis: The appeals were filed after expiry of the period allowed by the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The statutory language was treated as excluding any authority to condone delay beyond the further period expressly permitted. Since the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were admittedly beyond that limit, the appellate authority could not entertain them on the ground of sufficient cause or otherwise. In view of the jurisdictional bar, merits of the dispute were not gone into.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned beyond the prescribed statutory period, and the appeals were rightly rejected as time-barred.

---