| COURT: | |
| CORAM: | |
| SECTION(S): | |
| GENRE: | |
| CATCH WORDS: | |
| COUNSEL: | |
| DATE: | (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | January 6, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | |
| FILE: | |
| CITATION: | |
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).
[…] The judgement of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast is impliedly […]