Division Bench judgement that Court has no power to condone delay in excise appeals overruled
In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT Act), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
This view is incorrect because by virtue of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, where a statute is silent, the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act applies and the Court has power to condone delay.
Accordingly, Shruti Colorants is overruled.
See Also: CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court) and Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court).
Related Judgements
- CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court)
In CCE vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd (223) E.L.T. 337 the Supreme Court held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing of a Reference Application u/s 35H(1) of the Excise Act on the ground that where the statute specifies a limitation period, s. 5 of…
- CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court)
As s. 35-G of the Central Excise Act (and s. 130 of the Customs Act) provides that an appeal to the High Court shall be filed within 180 days of the receipt of the order appealed against and there is no provision for condonation of delay the court has…
- CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court)
In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period;
March 30th, 2009 at 8:31 am
[...] The judgement of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast is impliedly [...]