TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning duty liability of Rs. 11,26,541 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest under section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, as well as confiscation along with imposition of penalties under rule 25 and 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the finding of activities undertaken being that of manufacture, without going into the merits of the case for having been filed beyond the period permitted in section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX]. 2. The appellant was not represented and, as ascertained through the jurisdictional Central Excise C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of one month. Thus, the total period, including the extended period to prefer an appeal under Section 85 of the Act, 1994, is three months. The provision of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is parimateria with Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, relating to appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Singh Enterprises (surpa). The said Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act, may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the delay in preferring appeal before the learned Commissioner beyond the normal period/extended period can be condoned by the Tribunal as submitted by learned counsel. While interpreting a similar provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission; (2010) 5 SCC 23 has laid down that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application where the Legislature has prescribed stipulated outer limit restricting discretion to condone the delay. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is reproduced as under:- "16. In view of the above discussion, we hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by this Court for entertaining an appeal filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight of the power of writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereas no such power is available with the Tribunal. The Tribunal has to work within the four corners of the statute. Taking the similar view the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the matter of V.P. Khader v. CCE, ST &Cus; 2019 (25) GSTL 209 (Ker.) has held that neither the First Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. Even the Tribunal in the matter of Shambhu Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Cenvat Credit; 2021 (378) ELT 208 (Tri-Delhi) has specifically held that the Tribunal does not have power, much less discretionary power beyond the extended period of thirty days after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....power or authority to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute for entertaining the appeal. Similar issue, regarding the condonation of delay beyond the period specified in the statute in filing appeal, came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of State of Haryana v. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.2015 (328) E.L.T. 27(P & H), wherein it has been held that wherever the extent of condonable period is specifically prescribed by a statute, it would not be appropriate even under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition so as to breach the express provision in the statute and act contrary to the mandate of the legislature. The relev....