M/s. Goodearth Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Kanpur
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 699-700 of 2006
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 3560 of 2006, 4245, 4675 and 4676 of 2007)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 448 of 2003]
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 3560 of 2006, 4245, 4675 and 4676 of 2007)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 448 of 2003]
Petitioner: M/s. Goodearth Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent: Commnr. of Central Excise, Kanpur
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 699-700 of 2006
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 3560 of 2006, 4245, 4675 and 4676 of 2007)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 448 of 2003]
(With Civil Appeal Nos. 3560 of 2006, 4245, 4675 and 4676 of 2007)
[From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2004 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 448 of 2003]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 14, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. P.V. Shetty, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajendra Singhvi, Ms. Maitreyi Singhvi, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Alka Sharma, Mr. Jubair Ahmad Khan, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Mr. B.V. Balram Das and Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates with him for the Appellant.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Atul Mishra, Mr. K.S. Mahendra, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates for the Respondent.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Atul Mishra, Mr. K.S. Mahendra, Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal and Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Advocates for the Respondent.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
In these appeals, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is power for condonation of delay in seeking a reference under Section 35H of the
Central Excise Act, 1944. By judgment delivered separately in Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2007 [JT 2008 (2) SC 459] we held that this is not permissible. It was inter alia held as follows:
‘At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take not of Section 35B(3) which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which specifically says that it has to be within three months from the date on which the impugned order is communicated. But sub-section (5) of Section 35B permits the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal even after the aforesaid period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (3) expired if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Similar is the
position for cross-dejection under sub-section (4). No such provision for condonation of delay exists in Section 35H(1). In other words, the legislative intent is clear that the Parliament never
intended that delay in filing the reference application under Section 35H(1) could be condoned.
It is also to be noted that under
Section 35E(3) provision for limitation
has been provided. Here again, the
outer limit for condonation has been indicated.’
That being so, these appeals deserve
to be dismissed which we direct. No
costs.
In these appeals, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there is power for condonation of delay in seeking a reference under Section 35H of the
Central Excise Act, 1944. By judgment delivered separately in Civil Appeal No. 4647 of 2007 [JT 2008 (2) SC 459] we held that this is not permissible. It was inter alia held as follows:
‘At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take not of Section 35B(3) which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal which specifically says that it has to be within three months from the date on which the impugned order is communicated. But sub-section (5) of Section 35B permits the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal even after the aforesaid period of limitation prescribed in sub-section (3) expired if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Similar is the
position for cross-dejection under sub-section (4). No such provision for condonation of delay exists in Section 35H(1). In other words, the legislative intent is clear that the Parliament never
intended that delay in filing the reference application under Section 35H(1) could be condoned.
It is also to be noted that under
Section 35E(3) provision for limitation
has been provided. Here again, the
outer limit for condonation has been indicated.’
That being so, these appeals deserve
to be dismissed which we direct. No
costs.
