| 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:
- PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
- CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
- Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
- Tata Communications Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”,…
- M/s. J. S. & M. F. Builders vs. A. K. Chauhan (Bombay High Court) According to the Assessing Officer, assessee had erred in offering to tax ‘capital gains’ in the year when the individual flats were sold whereas such ‘capital gains’ could be assessed to tax only when the land is trasferred to the co-operative society formed by the flat purchasers. If the assessee…
- PCIT vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court) The use of the expression “may” in the aforesaid provision is clearly indicative of the legislative intent that the limitation period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed is not to be construed in such a manner that there can not be…
[…] Also: CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court […]