2019 (8) TMI 257 - HC - Central Excise

Court affirms dismissal on appeal limitation, emphasizes statutory timelines.

The Executive Officer Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, The Branch Manager Indian Bank

The Executive Officer Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, The ... Issues:1. Limitation period for filing statutory appeal.2. Power of statutory Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond the prescribed limit.3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in cases with prescribed time limits.4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to entertain appeals beyond the statutory cap.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case revolves around the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal. The impugned order, dismissing the appeal on the point of limitation without delving into the merits of the case, was challenged by the petitioner.2. The critical aspect is whether the statutory Appellate Authority has the power to condone delay beyond the prescribed limit. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred due to the delay in filing, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines.3. The Court examined the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in cases where a specific cap is provided for delay condonation. Citing precedents, including judgments such as Singh Enterprises and Hongo India Private Limited, the Court reiterated that when a statute sets a limit for delay condonation, the Authority cannot extend it beyond the prescribed period, thereby ousting the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.4. Additionally, the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to entertain appeals beyond the statutory cap was questioned. The Court highlighted that the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the appeal solely on the limitation point, without considering other legal grounds not raised before them, was within their purview. The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the grounds raised before the Appellate Authority and not expanding the scope beyond those grounds.5. Based on the authoritative pronouncements of the Honorable Supreme Court and in line with previous decisions, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.