TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appeals are not fit to be entertained. It was stated that the appeals arise from an order by which the appeals preferred by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) were dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was pointed out that in terms of the proviso to Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), appeal can be filed within a period of sixty days; in an appropriate case, on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant, the delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned but not beyond thirty days. In other words, appeal can be preferred within ninety days at the most, and any appeal preferred beyond ninety days has to be dismissed on the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being no illegality in the order of the Commissioner, inasmuch as he has no option but to dismiss the appeal as time-barred, it will be futile to entertain this appeal. Question arose as to whether the limitation on the power of Commissioner in entertaining the appeal filed beyond the period of ninety days applies to the Tribunal as well or the Tribunal in an appropriate case on sufficient cause being shown can direct the appeal to be heard by the Commissioner on merit. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that if this Tribunal were to confine itself merely to the question of legality of the order, without taking into account the attending facts and circumstances in which the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule of the Limitation Act, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only "in so far as, and to the extent which they are expressly excluded by such appeal or local law". Provisions of Section 5 of the Act having been held to have been expressly excluded in view of the express provisions of Section 35 of the Act, there is no scope for taking a different view and holding that by virtue of Section 29(2) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court can condone the delay even if the appeal is preferred after the extended period of thirty days. 6. Indeed, it is doubtful if the power under Section 5 can be invoked at all as the said provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proviso to sub-section (2), but not more than 15 days late and the discretion is to be exercised in favour of entertaining the application for renewal when it is shown that there was sufficient cause for not making it in time. Now the question which arises is; does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply so as to empower the Regional Transport Authority, for sufficient cause, to entertain an application for renewal even where it is delayed by more than 15 days? Section 29, sub-section (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes Section 5 applicable in the case of an application for renewal unless its applicability can be said to be expressly excluded by any provision of the Act. The only provision of the Act sought to be pressed into servic....