LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE versus M/S. HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S C.R. 1197 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE A ~ v. MIS. HONGO !NOIA (P) LTD. & ANR. Civil Appeal No. 1939 of 2009 MARCH 27, 2009 B [K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P.SATHASIVAM AND J.M.PANCHAL, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 - Condonation of delay- High Court's power under c s.5 to condone delay in filing reference application under s.35H(1) of the unamended Central Excise Act, beyond the period of 180 days - Held: Time limit prescribed under s.35H(1) is absolute and unextendable under s.5- Delay after • prescribed period of 180 days thus not condonable - It is the D duty of the court to respect legislative intent and by giving liberal interpretation, limitation cannot be extended by invoking s. 5 of the Act - Central Excise Act, 1944 - s.35H(1)(before Act 4912005) - Interpretation of statutes. The question which arose for consideration in these E appeals was whether the High Court in the reference application under Section 35H(1) of the unamended Central Excise Act, 1944 has power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the main statute i.e., Central F Excise Act. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has no power to condone " the delay in filing the "reference application" filed by the Commissioner under unamended Section 35H(1) of the G Central Excise Act, 1944 beyond the prescribed period of 180 days and it rightly dismissed the reference on the ground of limitation. [Para 21] [1212-F-G] 1197 H 1198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 s c R. A 2. In the case of appeal to the Commissioner, Section 35 provides 60 days time and in addition to the same, Commissioner has power to condone the delay up to 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown. Likewise, Section 358 provides 90 days time for filing appeal to the Appellate B Tribunal and sub-section (5) therein enables the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay irrespective of the number of days, if sufficient cause is shown. Likewise, Section 35EE which provides 90 days time for filing revision by the Central Government and, proviso to the same enables C the revisional authority to condone the delay for a further period of 90 days, if sufficient cause is shown, whereas in the case of appeal to the High Court under Section 35G and reference to the High Court under unamended Section 35H of the Act, total period of 180 days has been provided for availing the remedy of appeal and the D reference. However, there is no further clause empowering the High Court to condone the delay after the period of 180 days. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the E Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after expiry of the prescribed period of 180 days. Even otherwise, for filing an appeal to the Commissioner, and to the Appellate Tribunal as well as revision to the Central F Government, the legislature has provided 60 days and 90 days respectively, on the other hand, for filing an appeal and reference to the High Court larger period of 180 days has been provided with to enable the Commissioner and the other party to avail the same. The legislature provided G sufficient time, namely, 180 days for filing reference to the High Court which is more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision. [Paras 12, 19] [1204-G-H; 1205-A- C; 1211-D-F] Commisst0ner of Customs, Central Excise, Naida v. H Punjab Fibres Ltd. Naida (2008) 3 SCC 73; Union of India v • COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE 1199 V MIS. HONGO INDIA (P) LTD. & ANR Mis. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470 Sharda Devi A v. State of Bihar (2002) 3 SCC 705; Elisabeth and Others v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433; MM Thomas vs. State of Kera/a and Another (2000) 1 SCC 666; Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, B Jamshedpur and Others (2008) 3 SCC 70 - referred to. 3. The nature of the remedy provided in Central Excise Act are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete Code by itself which alone should govern the c several matters provided by it. If, on examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are ne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.