LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

M/S. CHAUDHARANA STEELS (P) LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 562 
M/S. CHAUDHARANA STEELS (P) LTD. 
V. 
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, 
ALLAHABAD 
(Civii Appeal No. 5389 of 2007) 
MAY 8, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
C 
Cenfral Excise Act, 1944 - s. 35-G - Condonation of 
delay in filing appeal under - Power of - Held: High Court 
has no power to condone the delay. 
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Naida v. 
D Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noida 2008 (3) SCC 73; Commissioner 
of Customs and Central Excise v. Mis. Hoga India (P) Ltd. 
and Anr. 2009 (4) SCALE 37 4, relied on. 
E 
F 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (3) sec 13 
Relied on. 
2009 (4) SCALE 374 
Relied on. 
Para 1 
Para 1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5389 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.07.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Central Excise Appeal No. 
23 (D) of 2005. 
Pankaj Bhatia, Vivek Choudhary and Jainendra 
' 
G Maldahiyar (T. Mahipal) for the Appellants. 
H 
Navin Prakash (8.V. Balaram Das) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
562 
-
โ€ข 
CHAUDHARANA STEELS (P) LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 563 
CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal the only 
A 
~ question that arises for consideration is whether there is power 
for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35-
G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). By 
judgment delivered in Commissioner of Customs, Central 
Excise, Noicja v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Naida (2008 (3) SCC 73) 
B 
it was helq that the High Court has no power to condone delay 
in seeking reference under Section 35-H 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 ~: Mis. Hongo c 
India (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (4) SCALE 374 concurred with the 
view t~ken 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 
D 
ยทยท ยท which we direct. No costs. 
N.J 
Appeal dismissed.