Limitation for excise appeals: delay beyond the fixed filing period cannot be condoned where the statute gives no such power.

An excise appeal filed under Section 35G after expiry of the prescribed 180-day period was treated as barred by limitation, because the statute did not confer power to condone delay beyond that fixed period. The court distinguished authorities concerning Section 35H and rejected reliance on Order XLI Rule 3A CPC through Section 35G(9), following the consistent line of limitation decisions under the excise statute. The appeal was therefore not maintainable and could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was barred by limitation and whether delay beyond 180 days could be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after the prescribed period of 180 days. The Court distinguished the authorities dealing with Section 35H and noted that, even if some observations were obiter, the consistent line of decisions on limitation under the excise statute pointed against any power to condone delay beyond the statutory period. The Court also noticed the argument based on Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 through Section 35G(9), but declined to proceed on that basis in view of the binding effect of the limitation decisions relied upon.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by limitation and could not be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a fixed period for filing an excise appeal and does not confer power to condone delay beyond that period, an appeal filed after expiry of the prescribed time is not maintainable.

---