Limitation Act in excise proceedings: delay could not be condoned absent express statutory application

Under the unamended Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, appellate and revisional authorities had no power to condone delay by applying Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, because those provisions do not extend to executive proceedings unless expressly made applicable. The ruling notes that the relevant appeal and revision were filed before Chapter VI-A was introduced, so the later amendment did not govern the case. Accordingly, the delay could not be excused under the Limitation Act framework, and the refusal to condone delay was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate and revisional authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act could condone delay in filing the appeal and revision by applying Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the excise demand and penalty, but the substantive controversy turned on limitation. The Court noted that the appeal and revision had been filed before the amendment introducing Chapter VI-A and that the governing law at the relevant time was the unamended Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Relying on the settled position that the rules in Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings before executive authorities unless expressly made applicable, the Court held that the authorities had no power to condone the delay. The delay, even if only a few days, therefore could not be excused under the Limitation Act framework.

Conclusion: The applicability of Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was negatived, and the refusal to condone delay was upheld, which was against the assessee.

---