TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise Appeal St. No. 4221 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 11 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4522 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 20 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4812 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 6 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4512 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 15 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4525 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 13 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4549 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 21 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4754 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 9 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4547 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 14 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4657 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 18 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4551 of 2023 with Civil Application (CAT) No. 16 of 2023 in Central Excise Appeal St. No. 4555 of 2023. For the Applicant/Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Malpani, Advocate instructed by Mr. Shreyas Agrawal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mrs. Ketki Jaltare Vaidya, Advocate. ORDER PER In all these applications, a common question is involved, which is, whether the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vening period i.e. in February, 2023 was not maintainable at all. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the law is well settled on this point that the period of limitation for challenging the final order, in the present case, the order dated 22-2-2022 shall start from the date of rejection of rectification application i.e. from 11-8-2023. The counsel for respondent submitted that the appellant is well aware of the said position of law and, therefore, has pleaded in paragraph no. 7 of the application that the date of order that will be passed in rectification application is a relevant date and, therefore, the appeal that is being filed prior to decision in rectification application will be within the prescribed period. 7. Thus, what transpires is that the applicant intends to avail two remedies simultaneously. One through application under Section 35-C(2) of the Act of 1944 seeking rectification in the impugned order and the other under Section 35-G(2) of the Act of 1944 by filing appeal. Such a course, as adopted by the applicant, in our view, is not permissible. The scope of Section 35-C(2) is altogether different than the scope of appeal under Section 35-G(2). Under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents enlisted below. (1) M. P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commission of Central Excise [2015 (319) E.L.T. 373 (S.C.)], (2) R. B. Ramlingam Vs. R. B. Bhvaneswari [(2009) 2 SCC 689], (3) Resorts Consortium India Limited Vs. ITAT, SMC-1 Delhi Bench and ors. [High Court of Delhi] order dated 7-11-2023 in ITA 425/2023 & CM APPL. 45878/2023, (4) Commissioner of Customs Vs. VVF (India) Ltd. [2017 (348) E.L.T. 624 (Guj.)], (5) Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T.-V [2019 (22) G.S.T.L. 342 (Bom.)], (6) Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and ors. [(2019) 6 SCC 387], (7) N. S. Bohra Vs. Suresh Kumar Hawa and ors. [2000 SCC OnLine Raj 401], (8) H. L. Malhotra & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax {[2021] 125 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi)}, (9) Tvl. SKL Exports Vs. Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) (Appeal), Erode & Salem [Order of High Court at Madras dated 14-3-2024 in WP Nos. 6825,6828 & 6829 of 2024]. The law is well settled on this count. Section 14 of the Limitation Act carves out an exception excluding the period of limitation when the proceedings are being perceived with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature." Thus, the Supreme Court held that in case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature. Even otherwise, the issue of limitation would have arisen only after receiving order in the proceedings under Section 35-C(2). The applicant, however, filed appeal in the intervening period, that too, without seeking withdrawal of application filed under Section 35-C(2) of the Act of 1944. The judgments so cited, therefore, will be of no consequence. 13. What is most surprising is that the learned Senior Counsel has relied on as many as following five authorities wherein the Court held that time li....