TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d-IV of the 2nd respondent and quash the same respectively. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained EPCG License No.0330001418 dated 11.10.2001 from JDGFT, Mumbai for import of capital goods duty free under Notification No.49/2000 dated 27.04.2000 and though the petitioner has fulfilled the export obligation within the stipulated time and applied to the DGFT for redemption certificate and obtained redemption letter, the 1st respondent passed the impugned order-in-original No.15733/2011 dated 25.04.2011 demanding Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest. Commissioner of Appeals dismissed the appeal preferred against the said order In the Order in appeal No.57 of 2015 dated 30.1.2015 holding that he has no power to condon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and shall be verified in the prescribed manner as may be specified by rules made in this behalf." 5. On a reading of the above provision, it is clear that Section 128(1) prescribes that the appeal must, in the first instance, be filed within sixty days from the date of the communication of the decision or order which is the subject matter of the appeal. The proviso to Section 128 (1) enables the Commissioner (Appeals) to permit the filing of the appeal beyond the sixty days referred to above provided that he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the sixty days prescribed. However, on a plain reading of the proviso, it does appear that the Commissioner (Appeals) can exercise s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and observed as under in para 8: "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the 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 communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and while answering in the negative, the Supreme Court has held in para 3 to 37 as under: "35. It was contended before us that the words expressly excluded would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and rightly dismissed the reference on the ground of limitation. 9. The Customs Act, 1962 itself is a complete Code. Reading various chapters and various sections thereof, it is very clear that it is an Act independent of other provisions. It provides for search, seizure, arrest, confiscation of goods, conveyance, imposition of penalties, settlement of cases, appeals including the appeal to the Supreme Court and hearing before the Supreme Court, period of limitation, offences and prosecution. Thus, it is an independent Act. Therefore, the Customs Act, 1962 is a complete code and the provisions of Section 128 (1) clearly indicate that the provisions of the Limitation Act were to apply only to the extent and during the extended period of 3....