Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court – Larger Bench)

CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court – Larger Bench)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (hongo_delay_condonation.pdf)

High Court has no power to condone delay in filing appeals

Where s. 35G of the Central Excise Act (= 260A of the I. T. Act) provided a time limit of 180 days for filing an appeal and there was no provision for condoning delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there was complete exclusion of section 5 of the Limitation Act and the High Court had no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period. Even otherwise, the legislature had provided sufficient time for filing a reference to the High Court which was more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision.

Note: The judgement of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast is impliedly overruled.

See Also: Shruti Colourants (Bom) and Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom Full Bench).

Related Judgements

  1. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  2. CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) 

    In the case of a chit fund following the ‘completed contract method of accounting’ and offering income at the end of the chit, held, approving the method: (i) Recognition/identification of income under the Act is attainable by several methods of … CIT vs. Bilahari Investments (Supreme Court) Read…
  3. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›
  4. Agricultural PMC vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.
    Read more ›
  5. B. M. Malani vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Levy of interest is for compensating the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. This principle should also be applied for determining whether any hardship had been caused or not. A genuine hardship means a genuine difficulty. It cannot be…