IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 14 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 6, 2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana …Appellant Versus M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd. …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Government of India (Indirect Taxes), for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the respondent. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is directed against order dated 31.12.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal). Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, ‘the Limitation Act’) seeking condonation of 85 CEA No. 14 of 2009 (O&M) days delay in filing of the appeal has also been made by pleading various grounds. Another application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 6 days delay in re-filing the appeal has also been made. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the respondent- assessee has at the outset placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 and has argued that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded and no benefits could be conferred. According to the learned counsel, an appeal could be filed in the High Court within a period of 180 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party. Accordingly, it has been urged that the remedy of seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant- revenue, however, has not been able to meet the aforesaid argument except stating that the Parliament is in the process of amending the law. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee is sustainable. In para 19 of the judgment in Hongo India (P) Ltd. (supra) it has been categorically observed that an appeal to the High Court should be made within a period of 2 CEA No. 14 of 2009 (O&M) 180 days only from the date of communication of the decision or order. After examining the scheme of the Act and the language used in other provisions, their Lordships’ of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the legislature has intended the Appellate Authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days, which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. However, there is no such provision for condoning the delay in respect of an appeal to be filed before the High Court. Accordingly, it has been held that in the absence of any clause condoning the delay for showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the instant appeal has to be held to be barred by limitation. For the reasons aforementioned this appeal fails and the same is dismissed being barred by limitation. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) August 6, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3