1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.8 OF 2007 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.929 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Commissionerate, ICE House, 41/A, Opp. Sesson Road, Pune-1 .. Appellant's versue 1. Shri Arun Haridas Ashar also partner of Metro Furnishing, R.H. H-7, Sector-7, Vashi, New Bombay 400 703. 1A. Jayashree Arun Ashat 1B. Urvi Arun Ashar 1C. Hemanshi Arun Ashar All Indian Inhabitants, residing at 202, Jkimmy Towers, Sector-4, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. 2. Shri ramesh Haridas Ashar Flat No.5, 67, Gokul Building, Sion (East), Bombay 400 022. Partner of Metro Furnishing, Situated at 146, Krishna Bhuwan Room No.20, 2nd Floor, Kalbadevi Mumbai 400 022. 3. Ramswaroop Jajoo, C/o. M/s. AR Agencies, 146, Krishna Bhavan, Room No.20, 2 2nd floor, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. .. Respondents. ALONGWITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.256 OF 2007 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3797 OF 2007 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.281 OF 2007 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3993 OF 2007 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.57 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1631 OF 2008 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.103 OF 2007 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2203 OF 2008 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.145 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2374 OF 2008 AND 3 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.89 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2576 OF 2008 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.147 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2612 OF 2007 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.152 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2665 OF 2008 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.162 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2392 OF 2008 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.169 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2482 OF 2008 AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL (L) NO.138 OF 2004 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2907 OF 2007 4 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.2 OF 2007 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.169 OF 2007 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.11 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.478 OF 2008 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.60 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2024 OF 2008 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.61 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2026 OF 2008 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.62 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2027 OF 2008 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.60 OF 2007 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2907 OF 2007 5 AND CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO.54 OF 2008 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1924 OF 2008 Mr. S.D. Bhosale, Ms. S.V. Bharucha, Mr. P.A. Vyas, Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Ms. N.V. Masurkar, Ms. Kiran Kandpile, Mr. R.C. Master, Mr. K.R. Chaudhari for appellants. Mr. Prakash Shah i/by M/s. PDS Legal for respondents in Central Excise Appeal (L) Nos.145 and 147 of 2008. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Date of reserving the judgment : 11 th /12 th August, 2008 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 29 th August, 2008 JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter, C.J.) 12 appeals filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act and 7 appeals filed under section 130 of the Customs Act are admittedly, barred by time. Notices of Motion have been taken out for condonation of delay. The arguments raised against the prayer is that this court has no power to condone the delay in face of the provisions of section 35G of the Central Excise Act and section 130 of the Customs Act. 6 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of commissioner of Income Tax vs. Velingkar Brothers, (2007) 289 ITR 382 wherein the Court took the view that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was attracted in the appeals filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was no specific exclusion of the application of the Limitation Act. Firstly, the view of the Full Bench of this court cannot be termed as a correct exposition of law in face of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Excise, 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.) and secondly, even in the case of Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes (Ms), (2003) 8 SCC 431, where the Supreme Court took the view that in absence of statutory provisions for condoning the delay recourse to inherent power would not be permissible. Still in the case of Subal Paul v. Malina Paul and another, JT 2003 (5) SC 193, the Supreme Court clearly stated the applicability of the general rule and held as under: “But an exception to the aforementioned rule is ion matters where the special Act sets out a self-contained Code, the applicability of the general law procedure would be impliedly excluded. [See Upadhyaya Hargovind 7 Devshanker v. Dhirendrasinh Virbhadrasinhji Solanki and others (AIR 1988 SC 815”. Thus, in our opinion, the applicants cannot take much benefit of the Full Bench judgment of this court. All the contentions raised in these matters have been duly considered by us in the judgment of the court pronounced today in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-II v. Shruti Colorants Ltd., Central Excise Appeal (L) No.114 of 2008, where this objection has been accepted by the court and all the applications have been dismissed as not maintainable consequently holding that appeals do not survive for consideration. For the reasons stated in that judgment in the case of Commissioner, Central Excise, Pune-II v. Shruti Colorants Ltd (Central Excise Appeal (L) No.114 of 2008), we also dismiss all the applications for condonation of delay as not maintainable and consequently, the appeals filed do not survive for consideration on merits. The appeals and applications are accordingly, disposed of. 8 CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.