Statutory limitation and non-condonable delay under Central Excise law upheld for an appeal filed beyond the maximum period.

An appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond sixty days from communication of the order, and also beyond the additional thirty-day condonable period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was held to be barred by limitation. The appellate authority had no power to extend limitation beyond the statutory maximum, and the revisional authority's affirmation of that view was found unobjectionable. In writ jurisdiction, no illegality or perversity was shown in the concurrent findings on limitation, so the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation and whether the delay beyond the statutory period could be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond sixty days from the date of communication of the impugned order and also beyond the further condonable period of thirty days prescribed by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellate authority had no power to enlarge the limitation beyond the statutory maximum, and the revisional authority correctly affirmed that view. The challenge in writ jurisdiction disclosed no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings on limitation.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was upheld.

---