M/s. Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2007
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No. 23 (D) of 2005]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No. 23 (D) of 2005]
Petitioner: M/s. Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd.
Respondent: The Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2007
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No. 23 (D) of 2005]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 27.07.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No. 23 (D) of 2005]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 08, 2009
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Jainendra Maldahiyar (for Mr. T. Mahipal), Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Navin Prakash (for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das), Advocate for the Respondent(s).
Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Jainendra Maldahiyar (for Mr. T. Mahipal), Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Navin Prakash (for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das), Advocate for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Act, 1944
Power of condonation of delay. Held following the judgement in ‘Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. M/s. Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr.’ which concurred with the decision in ‘Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida’, High Court has no power to condone delay, appeal dismissed.
Central Excise Act, 1944
Power of condonation of delay. Held following the judgement in ‘Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. M/s. Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr.’ which concurred with the decision in ‘Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida’, High Court has no power to condone delay, appeal dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
1. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. M/s. Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr. [JT 2009 (7) SC 83] (Para 1)
2. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida [JT 2008 (2) SC 458] (Para 1)
2. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida [JT 2008 (2) SC 458] (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. In this appeal the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is power for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the `Act’). By judgment delivered in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida [JT 2008 (2) SC 458] it was held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in seeking reference under Section 35H of the Act. Doubting correctness of the view reference was made to larger Bench. By judgment dated 27.3.2009 a three-judge Bench in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. M/s. Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr. [JT 2009 (7) SC 83] concurred with the view taken by the two-judge Bench in Punjab Fibres case (supra). The decision has full application to the present case also.
2. That being so this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. No costs.
***********
1. In this appeal the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is power for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the `Act’). By judgment delivered in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida [JT 2008 (2) SC 458] it was held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in seeking reference under Section 35H of the Act. Doubting correctness of the view reference was made to larger Bench. By judgment dated 27.3.2009 a three-judge Bench in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. M/s. Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr. [JT 2009 (7) SC 83] concurred with the view taken by the two-judge Bench in Punjab Fibres case (supra). The decision has full application to the present case also.
2. That being so this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. No costs.
***********
