Limitation in excise appeals: delay not condoned where the appeal was filed after the prescribed period.

An appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 had to be filed within three months of receipt of the order, and filing beyond that period rendered it time-barred. The delay of three days was not condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because the explanation for delay was rejected on merits by the revisional authority and no apparent error of law was found in the concurrent orders. The principle relating to despatch by registered post did not assist, as the appeal had not been posted within the limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation and whether delay of three days could be condoned so as to require interference in revision.

Analysis: The appeal was required to be filed within three months from the date of the decision or receipt of the order. The record showed that the order had been received on 13 September 1972 and the appeal was filed on 14 December 1972, beyond the prescribed period. The prayer for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was considered and rejected. The revisional authority also did not accept the explanation for delay on merits. The Court found no apparent error of law in the concurrent orders and held that the principle relating to despatch by registered post could not assist the petitioner because the appeal had not been posted within limitation.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly treated as time-barred, the delay was not liable to be condoned, and no ground was made out for interference.

---