Fixed statutory limitation without condonation power bars belated excise appeal under Section 35G.

An appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act was addressed as time-barred because the provision prescribed a fixed 180-day period and did not expressly empower the High Court to condone delay. The Court noted that Supreme Court observations on Section 35G in other cases were obiter and distinguished authorities concerning Section 35H and different limitation provisions. It applied the settled approach that, where a statute fixes a limitation period without providing for extension, the appeal cannot be entertained after expiry of that period. Reference to Order XLI Rule 3A CPC did not alter that result, and delay was not condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be entertained when filed beyond the prescribed period of 180 days, and whether the High Court had power to condone such delay.

Analysis: Section 35G prescribed a period of 180 days for filing an appeal and contained no express provision for condonation of delay. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court decisions relied on by the respondent as dealing with Section 35H and with other limitation provisions, and noted that the observations on Section 35G in those decisions were obiter. Even so, the Court held that the consistent line of authority on limitation under the excise enactment supported the view that where the statute prescribes a fixed period and does not confer a power to extend it, the appeal cannot be entertained after expiry of that period. The reference to Order XLI Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not persuade the Court to take a different view in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be barred by limitation and the High Court declined to condone the delay.

---