Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1460

Whether a delay in filing appeal to Commissioner Appeals beyond the prescribed period could be condoned by resorting to Limitation Act, 1963?

Case:-RAJ CHEMICALS V/S UNION OF INDIA
 
Citation:- 2013(287) E.L.T. 145(Bom.)

Brief Facts: - In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has sought a direction from this Court to condone the delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 5 March, 2010 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Navi Mumbai. An appeal lies against the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), but no appeal was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The submission of the petitioner is that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it would be open to this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone the delay, even though it is beyond the period prescribed by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Alternatively, it has been prayed that the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dismissing the rebate applications may be made subject to the outcome of the Revision Application filed by the petitioner before the Government of India. By his order dated 5 March, 2010, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, rejected seven rebate applications filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority allowed the re-credit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 15.48 lakhs debited through the Cenvat credit account of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted liberty to file refund applications under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Petitioner’s Contention: - The petitioner contended that notwithstanding the fact that the Legislature under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 has laid down an outer limit of a further period of thirty days, beyond the original period of sixty days, for condonation of delay, this does not oust the power of the Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Further, under Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 are to apply to the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application under a special or local law only in so far as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The submission is that in order that there should be an express exclusion, there must be an absolute embargo placed by the express words of the statute excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Further he submit that unlike Section 35H which provided an absolute period of limitation of 180 days, Section 35 to which the present petition relates, does provide a power to condone a delay beyond sixty days though up to an extent of thirty days. Hence, it was sought to be urged that there was no absolute bar to take recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Reasoning of Judgment: - The Hon’ble High Court held that Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that any person aggrieved by a decision or order of a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication of the order. Under the proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, to allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days.
It was held that the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a special Act governing the levy, collection and recovery of Central Excise duty on goods manufactured or produced in India. In sub-section (1) of Section 35, the Legislature has mandated that an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) has to be filed within sixty days from the date of the communication of the order. Under the proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) is permitted to allow the appeal to be filed within a further period of thirty days on sufficient cause being shown to his satisfaction. In other words, the clear intent of Parliament was that the power to condone the delay can be exercised only subject to sufficient cause being shown and to an extent of an outer limit of thirty days beyond the period of sixty days prescribed for filing of an appeal. Now, it is well settled that while construing whether the special law, within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 expressly excludes the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regard must be had to the overall scheme of the Act. Where the scheme of the Act indicates that the Legislature intended that an Appellate Authority should entertain an appeal by condoning a delay up to a certain period, that would evince a clear intent to exclude the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the present case, the clear provision is that an appeal has to be filed within sixty days and beyond that a delay up to thirty days can be condoned. The delay in excess of thirty days cannot be condoned by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which would stand expressly excluded within the meaning of Section 29(2). The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot permit or direct an infraction by the authorities created by a statute of the provisions of the statute under which they are constituted. When a period of limitation is prescribed for filing of an appeal and the extent of the power to condone the delay is also prescribed by the statute, the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would clearly be not warranted to direct the adjudicatory or appellate authority to breach the provision for limitation. This principle was laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.). While construing the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Supreme Court noted that a claim for refund could be made only in accordance with the provisions of that Section which inter alia included a period of limitation mentioned therein. In a more recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.) the provisions of Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 prior to its amendment came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The issue was whether a delay beyond the prescribed period could be condoned in exercise of the power of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Under the provisions of Section 35H, as they then stood before the amendment, the Commissioner or other party could, within a period of 180 days of the date upon which he is served with a notice of an order under Section 35C, direct the Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the language used in other provisions of the Act makes the position clear that the Legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to thirty days after expiry of sixty days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any clause permitting condoning of the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is a complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The submission before the Supreme Court in regard to Section 29(2) was that the words “expressly excluded” would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded.
They held that the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once the Legislature has laid down a period within which an appeal has to be filed and has prescribed the extent to which a delay beyond that period can be condoned, recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would stand “expressly excluded” within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accepting the submission of the Petitioner would completely defeat the scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In any event, the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue a direction which would command the authorities constituted under the Act to bypass or breach the provisions made in the statute.  The Petitioner not having filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 5 March, 2010 within limitation, this Court would not be justified in entertaining the petition and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay.

Decision: - Writ petition dismissed.

Comment:-The conclusion drawn from this case is that it is settled law that the specific law prevails over the general law. In a similar manner, when there is clear cut provision in the Central Excise Act, regarding the time limit of filing an appeal to the Commissioner Appeals, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to.

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com