Statutory limitation barred the appeal, with no power to condone delay or compel conversion into revision.

A statutory appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period could not be entertained where Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 conferred no power to condone delay, so the reasons for delay were irrelevant and the appeal had to fail on limitation. The authority was also under no duty to convert a consciously chosen appeal into a revision application under Section 81. A personal hearing was not mandatory because the provision left that question to the authority's discretion, and natural justice did not require a hearing in every case. Service on the firm through one partner was treated as sufficient, and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred and whether the appellate authority was bound to treat the appeal as a revision application or to grant a personal hearing.

Analysis: The appellate mechanism under Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 did not confer any discretion to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. In the absence of statutory power to enlarge limitation, the reasons for delay were immaterial and the authority could not entertain the appeal on merits. The appellant had consciously chosen to file an appeal under Section 80 instead of a revision under Section 81, and the authority was not required to suo motu convert the defective appeal into a revision. The request for personal hearing also failed, because Section 80(2) left the grant of hearing to the authority's discretion and the rules of natural justice did not mandate a hearing in every case. Service on the firm through one partner was treated as sufficient, and no infirmity was found in the order rejecting the appeal as time-barred.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld and the contentions regarding conversion into revision, personal hearing, and service were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding failed on limitation and the appellant obtained no relief on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a limitation period without conferring power to condone delay, the appellate authority cannot entertain a time-barred appeal on equitable grounds, nor can it be compelled to convert the chosen remedy into another statutory proceeding.

---