Limitation for excise appeals: internal departmental processing was held insufficient to condone a delayed filing.

A rectification application was allowed because the earlier order had overlooked the timely receipt of the delay-condonation application in the registry, amounting to a mistake apparent from the record. On limitation, an appeal had to be filed within three months from communication of the impugned order under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The explanation of departmental processing and legal opinion was held insufficient cause, and inter-departmental correspondence did not justify exercise of discretion under Section 35B(5). The delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal could be condoned and, if not, whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The application for rectification was allowed on the basis that the earlier order had overlooked the timely receipt of the delay-condonation application in the registry, which constituted a mistake apparent from the record. On the substantive question of limitation, the appeal was required to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the impugned order under sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The explanation offered for the delay was that the matter had gone through departmental processing and legal opinion. The Tribunal held that inter-departmental correspondence and internal processing did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation, and discretion under sub-section (5) of Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 was not warranted.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

---