Appeal dismissed for late filing exceeding time limit. Court affirms jurisdiction under Article 226.

The High Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 65 days in filing, exceeding the condonable 30-day limit. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain a writ directly against the original order, emphasizing specific circumstances where a writ petition could challenge the original adjudicating authority's order. The petitioner's explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient, highlighting the legislative intent to restrict appeals within the specified timeframe. The Court stressed the importance of a well-explained delay and prevention of gross injustice, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal against order dated 24.12.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ under Article 226 directly against the order in original.
3. Consideration of circumstances for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by Commissioner (AppealsI) and another dated 24.12.2014 by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. The delay in filing the appeal was explained due to organizational restructuring and misplacement of the order. The Commissioner of Appeals rejected the appeal due to delay beyond the maximum condonable period. The High Court noted that the delay of 65 days was beyond the condonable 30-day limit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2: The High Court recognized its power under Article 226 to entertain a writ directly against the original order, despite the statutory limitation of 60 days for filing an appeal. The Court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd case, emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction is not barred in such cases. The Court outlined specific circumstances where a writ petition could challenge the original adjudicating authority's order, ensuring justice and preventing gross injustice.

Issue 3: The petitioner's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal was considered insufficient by the High Court. The Court highlighted the statutory limitation of 60 days for filing an appeal, extendable by 30 days at the Commissioner's discretion. The petitioner's delay of 35 days beyond the maximum condonable period was viewed against the legislative intent to restrict appeals beyond the specified timeframe. The Court emphasized the importance of a well-explained delay and the prevention of gross injustice in considering condonation of appeal filing delays. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed due to the inadequate explanation for the delay.

---