Statutory limitation under Central Excise cannot be enlarged through writ jurisdiction where the law bars further condonation.

Where a special fiscal statute prescribes a fixed limitation period for filing an appeal or reference and does not authorise further condonation, that statutory bar prevails. The Limitation Act cannot be used to extend the period, and the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to override the express legislative scheme. The result is that a delayed filing beyond the permissible period is not maintainable, and the challenge to the appellate order fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could condone delay beyond the statutory period in filing the appeal/reference under the Central Excise regime.

Analysis: The appeal before the statutory appellate authority was filed after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. The governing scheme of the Central Excise Act excludes resort to the Limitation Act to enlarge the period fixed by the special statute. The High Court's writ jurisdiction does not confer power to override an express legislative bar on condonation where the statute itself prescribes the limitation and the extent of permissible delay. The principle that superior courts possess plenary powers does not authorise bypassing the specific limitation framework enacted for such proceedings.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned and the challenge to the appellate order failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on the question of delayed filing because the statutory time limit could not be extended by recourse to Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal statute prescribes a limitation period and does not empower further condonation, the High Court cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to enlarge that period or ignore the statutory bar.

---