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

Home › All Judgements › CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court)

CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 8, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

(1) 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 no power to condone delay;

(2) The power of the Court to condone delay flows from the provisions of the relevant law. If the relevant law specifies a period of limitation, then the inherent powers of Court to condone delay under the Limitation Act cannot apply;

(3) Upon expiration of period of limitation prescribed under a statute, a right in favour of the beneficiary or decree holder to treat the decree or order binding between the parties accrues and this is a legal right which accrues and should not be light heartedly disturbed. Delay cannot be condoned on grounds of equity or hardship;

(4) Further held in CCE vs. Arun Asher that the judgement of the Full Bench in Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom) that the Limitation Act applies to appeals filed under s. 260A of the Income-tax Act cannot be termed as a correct exposition of law in face of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.) where the Supreme Court took the view that in absence of statutory provisions for condoning the delay recourse to inherent power would not be permissible.

See Also: CCE Punjab Fibres 223 ELT 337 (SC) & CCE vs. Asia Pacific Marbles (Bom)

But Also See: Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bom)

Related Posts:

  • Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd vs. IAC (Bombay High Court) Section 40(3) of the Act bringing to tax land and building which is not used for business purposes by companies in which public are not substantially interested to tax under the Wealth Tax Act and leaving out those land and buildings which are used for business purposes by companies in…
  • CIT vs. L&T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mere using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income would not in the absence of same being particularized, lead to imposition of penalty. It is only when the specified officer of the Revenue is satisfied that there has been concealment of…
  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV (Bombay High Court) Apart from that, the Tribunal's order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We…
  • CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (Bombay High Court) In the present facts it is undisputed that the respondent assessee is in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property is not the business of the respondent assessee. In both the decisions relied upon by Mr. Pinto i.e. Chennai Properties (supra) and Rayala Corporation (supra),…
  • Indermal Manaji vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act states that if a person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer to be false or such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. Emptee Poly-Yarn (Bombay High Court) 

    Meaning of the terms “manufacture”, “production” and “process”. The process applied to POY either for the purpose of texturising or twisting constitutes manufacture as the article produced is recognised in the trade as distinct commodity pursuant to the process it undergoes and which amounts to manufacture. Read more ›
  3. Aatur Holdings (Bombay High Court) 

    (1) Though the assessee company was the defacto owner of the shares, the dividends could not be said to have accrued to it as it was not the dejure owner of the shares. (2) If there is an accounting standard (AS-9), the same has to be accepted in the…
  4. CIT vs. Star Chemicals (Bombay High Court) 

    It is clear from the reading of Section 36 (1) (vii) and Circular No. 551 dated 23rd January, 1990 that if the assessee has written off the debt as bad debt, that would satisfy the purpose of the Section.Read more ›
  5. Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) 

    Where the department sought condonation of delay of several months in filing appeals in several matters and explained the reasons for the delay in a casual and negligent manner and without giving even the basic details, HELD, castigating the department that:
    Read more ›
0 comments on “CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court)”
3 Pings/Trackbacks for "CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court)"
  1. CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court) | archives says:
    December 21, 2008 at 7:36 am

    […] Also: CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court […]

  2. CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench) | archives says:
    January 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    […] Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise […]

  3. archives » Blog Archive » CCE vs. Hongo India (Supreme Court - Larger Bench) says:
    March 31, 2009 at 8:43 am

    […] Also: Shruti Colourants (Bom) and Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom Full Bench). Posted in All Judgements, […]