Statutory limitation bars customs appeals filed beyond the condonable period; general limitation law cannot extend the fixed outer limit.

Section 128(1) of the Customs Act allows an appeal to be filed within 60 days of communication of the order, with condonation of delay only up to a further 30 days on sufficient cause being shown. Where an appeal is filed beyond that outer limit, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to entertain it, and section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot extend the period. On the facts, the appeals were filed after both the initial and extended periods, and the explanation for delay was vague and unsupported by particulars. The appellate authority therefore rightly declined to admit the appeals as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) were barred by limitation under section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the delay beyond the further condonable period of 30 days could be entertained.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 128(1) permits an appeal to be filed within 60 days from communication of the order, with a further discretion to condone delay only up to 30 days on sufficient cause being shown. The appeals were admittedly filed beyond the initial 60 days as well as beyond the additional 30 days. The explanation for delay was found to be vague and lacking specific dates and particulars. Reliance on a decision concerning service of an order did not assist the appellants because the order here was sent by speed-post and received in the appellant's office. The principle applied in the pari materia provision under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 confirms that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed extended period and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply.

Conclusion: The appeals were time-barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly refused to entertain them beyond the statutory limit.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals for want of limitation was upheld, leaving no scope for interference on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits condonation of delay only up to a fixed extended period, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone any further delay and the general law of limitation cannot override that express restriction.

---