IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No. 1 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh …Appellant Versus M/s Vivek Re-rolling, Mandi Gobindgarh …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel, Government of India (Indirect Taxes), for the appellant. None 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 6.3.2007, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal). Along with the appeal, an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, ‘the Limitation Act’) seeking condonation of 264 days delay in filing of the appeal has also been made by pleading various grounds. Another application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 28 days delay in re-filing the appeal has also been made. At the outset it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of CEA No. 1 of 2009 (O&M) Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417. In para 19 of the judgment it has been categorically observed that an appeal to the High Court should be made within a period of 180 from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party. 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. Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant- revenue, however, has not been successfully able to meet the aforesaid legal position of law. For the reasons aforementioned this appeal fails and the same is dismissed being barred by limitation. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) 2 CEA No. 1 of 2009 (O&M) August 12, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3