Court partially grants writ petition, quashes orders, directs appeal restoration & condones delay.

The court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing certain orders and directing the Appellate Collector to restore and decide the appeal on its merits, finding that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the period of limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 could be determined with the aid and assistance of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Whether the amendments to Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, introduced by the Finance (2) Act, 1980, applied retrospectively to the petitioner's case.
4. Whether the Appellate Authority should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
The petitioner argued that by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions contained in Section 5 of the said Act had become automatically applicable to determine the period of limitation prescribed in Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court examined the relevant legal provisions and noted that Section 29(2) governs cases where a special law prescribes a period of limitation different from the Limitation Act. It concluded that the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act would apply unless expressly excluded by the special law.

2. Entitlement to Benefits of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which clarified that Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act applies unless expressly excluded by the special law. However, the court noted that Section 5 applies to proceedings before a court, and the authorities under the Central Excises and Salt Act are not courts but instrumentalities of the State. Hence, Section 5 could not be applied to proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, and the petitioner was not entitled to its benefits.

3. Retrospective Application of Amendments to Section 35:
The court observed that Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 1980, allowing the Collector (Appeals) to condone delays of up to three months. This amendment came into force on 11-10-1982, while the petitioner's revision was pending. The court referred to legal principles indicating that procedural laws are generally retrospective. It concluded that the proviso allowing for the extension of the limitation period applied retrospectively to the petitioner's case.

4. Condonation of Delay:
The court noted that the petitioner's appeal was delayed by 11 days and that the petitioner had provided an explanation for the delay. The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal without considering the sufficiency of the cause for the delay. The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be considered liberally to serve the ends of justice. Given that the petitioner's assertions regarding the delay were uncontroverted, the court found that the delay should have been condoned.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the orders dated 21-8-1979 and 22-11-1982. It directed the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, to restore the appeal to its original number, treat it as filed within time, and decide it on merits. No order as to costs was made.

---