(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petitions. For the purpose of this order, we may record facts arising in Special Civil Application No. 14936 of 2012. Petitioner has challenged an order-in-original dated 30-9-2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax. Petition arises in following background:
(2.) Initially though the petitioner had challenged the order of the Tribunal confirming order of the Commissioner, realizing that statutory provisions contained in Central Excise Act, 1994, do not permit the Appellate Commissioner to extend limitation beyond a maximum period of 30 days, the petitioner has, before us, challenged very order-in-original questioning the very basis for passing such an order.
(3.) We are conscious that when the Legislature provides for a period of limitation and also further provides that, delay, if any, can be condoned only up to a certain period and not beyond, the Commissioner in not entertaining the petitioner's appeal, committed no error. Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had, all along, filed appeals against orders passed before and after the order-in-original impugned in this petition. It was simply because due to some lapse, copy of this order should not be traced. Therefore, appeal could not be presented. In that view of the matter, even in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we would not be justified in directing the Commissioner to do otherwise. Therefore, at the petitioners challenge confining to the Commissioner's view of not entertaining the appeal on merits, sic: we would have summarily dismissed the petition. However, in the present case, the petitioner has attacked the very original order and invoked our writ jurisdiction in the process.