Fixed statutory limitation bars condonation of delay where Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded.

Where the statute prescribes a fixed limitation period for filing an appeal and excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that period. The court treated the point as covered by binding precedent and noted that neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal could extend time beyond the statutory limit. The challenge to dismissal of the appeal as time-barred therefore failed, and the order rejecting the appeal on limitation was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's appeal on limitation and whether the delay in filing the first appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by binding precedent holding that, in such appeals, the prescribed limitation period is mandatory and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application. It was further noted that neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal has power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. The earlier decision on the same point had already been affirmed in review and no interference had been made in proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on limitation was upheld and the issue was answered against the appellant and in favour of the department.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order dismissing the appeal for limitation failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a fixed limitation period for filing the appeal and excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that period.

---