2008 (9) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant, who has filed the appeal against the impugned order dated 29-11-2005 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur to the extent that it has been held that the appellant is liable to pay Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) as there was no exemption available to the respondent from payment of the said AED. The appeal was filed under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (For short "Act"). The relevant clauses are as under :- "35B Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal,- (1)     - - - - - - (2)     - - - - - - (3)     Every appeal under this section shall be filed within three months from the date on which the ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terprises v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Jamshedvur ; 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), where the delay of 20 months was not condoned and it is observed as under :- "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communicat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... provision as provided in Section 35, it cannot extended to section 35G which has no such clause or provision. On the contrary as recorded, clause (5) of Section 35B provides power to the appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal even after expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting within that period. Therefore, the facet of "sufficient cause" of the Limitation Act applies. There is no such bar. The present section nowhere provides any such strict provision as provided in Section 35 of the Act. It is clear interpretation of that section, which cannot be extended to Section 35B of the Act. 7. So far as merit of the matter is concerned, the fact remains that the petitioner loses his....