Limitation in excise appeals: Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be used to condone delay.

The appeal was held time-barred because it was filed beyond the statutory period even on the appellant's own case that the order was received at the corporate office on 17-4-1982. The Tribunal rejected the contention that service had to be treated as effective only at the corporate office, noting that the claim, show cause notice and Assistant Collector's order had all been dealt with at the factory address in earlier stages. It also held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, so delay could not be condoned on that basis. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the appellant could rely on service at its corporate office and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to save the delay.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the statutory period even on the appellant's own case that the order was received at the corporate office on 17-4-1982. The record showed that the claim, show cause notice, and the Assistant Collector's order were all dealt with at the factory address in the earlier stages, making the later objection regarding exclusive service at the corporate office untenable. The Tribunal further held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and therefore the delay could not be condoned on that basis.

Conclusion: The appeal was barred by limitation and was dismissed.

---