Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant should have been given an opportunity to make good the deficiency in court fee stamps; (ii) Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and the appellate authority had power to condone the delay.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant should have been given an opportunity to make good the deficiency in court fee stamps.
Analysis: The deficiency in court fee stamps could have been cured by affording an opportunity to rectify it, and the omission to do so was accepted as a lapse.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and the appellate authority had power to condone the delay.
Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of three months under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and at the relevant time there was no power with the appellate authority to condone delay beyond that period.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because the appeal remained time-barred notwithstanding the defect in court fee stamps, and the dismissal of the appeal was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is filed beyond the prescribed limitation period and the appellate authority has no power to condone delay, the appeal cannot be entertained even if a curable defect in court fee stamps exists.