https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30655 The court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It found the differentiation in periods of limitation and powers of condonation justified and not arbitrary. The court dismissed the petitions challenging the provision but allowed the petitioners to file fresh writ petitions under Article 226 to challenge orders-in-original in extraordinary cases. The rule was discharged, and the petitions were dismissed. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30655 The court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It found the differentiation in periods of limitation and powers of condonation justified and not arbitrary. The court dismissed the petitions challenging the provision but allowed the petitioners to file fresh writ petitions under Article 226 to challenge orders-in-original in extraordinary cases. The rule was discharged, and the petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30655