MODI DISTILLERY Vs. CESTAT, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is with respect to the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 7th July, 2003 whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant as being beyond the period of limitation. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 , hereinafter referred to as the Act', provides for a period of sixty days for filing an appeal against the order in original and it further provides that if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. There is no dispute on facts that the appeal which was sought to be presented by the appellant was beyond 90 days.

(2.) Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no specific exclusion of the Limitation Act or provision thereof nor are there any words under Section 35 of the Act saying that further delay cannot be condoned. He, therefore, submits that there was an error on the part of the Tribunal in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) As far as the above statement of Mr. Nigam is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view in Doaba Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. V/s. CEGAT, New Delhi, 2004 169 ELT 258 wherein the Division Bench has held that if the statute provides for a period of limitation and further maximum period for which the delay can be condoned, the authority cannot extend the same.