Statutory appeal limitation and exceptional writ relief can coexist where non-consideration of a key defence causes miscarriage of justice.

A statutory appeal under the Central Excise Act cannot be entertained beyond the prescribed outer limit of ninety days; the appellate authority was therefore correct in treating the appeal as time-barred. At the same time, Article 226 relief may still be available in exceptional cases of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or gross miscarriage of justice. Where the original adjudication failed to consider a substantial defence on used capital goods and the amended legal position, the High Court could intervene to prevent failure of justice and remit the matter for fresh decision, subject to protective conditions for revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be entertained beyond the outer limit of ninety days and whether the appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone the delay. (ii) Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked to interfere with the order-in-original where a substantial defence on merits had not been considered and the case disclosed failure of justice.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be entertained beyond the outer limit of ninety days and whether the appellate authority was justified in refusing to condone the delay.

Analysis: The limitation scheme under Section 35 permits an appeal within sixty days, with a further condonable period of thirty days only. Once that outer limit is crossed, the appellate authority has no power to entertain the appeal. On that footing, the first appellate authority committed no error in returning the appeal as time-barred.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned beyond ninety days, and the appellate authority's refusal to entertain the belated appeal was legally correct.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked to interfere with the order-in-original where a substantial defence on merits had not been considered and the case disclosed failure of justice.

Analysis: Although writ jurisdiction cannot be used to extend a statutory limitation period, it may be exercised in exceptional cases where the original adjudication is without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, in flagrant disregard of law or procedure, or in violation of natural justice, and where refusal to intervene would cause failure of justice or gross injustice. The order-in-original failed to address the vital contention relating to liability on used capital goods and the legal position emerging from the amended regime, thereby resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. In such circumstances, judicial interference was warranted, subject to safeguarding the revenue by imposing conditions.

Conclusion: The writ court could interfere in the exceptional facts of the case, and the matter was required to be restored for fresh consideration on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part: the time-bar ruling of the appellate authority stood, but the High Court intervened on writ principles, set aside the adverse orders on conditions, and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication after deposit of a percentage of the demand and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal cannot be entertained beyond the expressly prescribed outer limitation, but Article 226 may still be invoked in exceptional cases of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or gross miscarriage of justice to prevent failure of justice.

---