1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.447 of 1996 with WRIT PETITION NO. 1395 OF 1996 WITH WRIT PETITION 2569 OF 1996 WITH WRIT PETITION 3633 OF 1997 Nath Pulp and Paper Mills Limited, Aurangabad, Nath House, Nath Road, Aurangabad through Shri Mohan Apte (General Manager Factories) .. Petitioner Versus 1] Union of India through the Collector, Central Excise & Customs Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2] The Superintendent, Central Excise & Customs Division II, Town Range, Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO Aurangabad. 3] The Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Customs Division II, Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 4] The Collector ( Appeals) Central Excise and Customs PMT Building, Swargate, Pune. 5] The Customs, Excise and Go,d (Appellate) Tribunal ( Western Region) Bench at Bombay, 2 “Karimji House”. P.N.B. Bldge., Shri P.M. Road, Fort, Bombay : 400 002. Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER B.R. GAVAI,J.]:- 1] Since the facts and the legal issue involved in both these 4 petitions are identical, the same are heard and decided together. 2] The petitioners are public limited companies engaged in manufacturing of paper and paper boards. Notices were issued to the petitioners for different periods demanding Excise duty for the product named as “Sodium Rosinate”, by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. The adjudicatory authority, i.e. the Deputy Collector, held that the said product was liable to payment of excise duty and issued demand notices. Being aggrieved thereby, appeals were preferred by the petitioners. However, since the appeals were preferred beyond the prescribed limitation, the appeals came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, further appeals were carried to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Appellate) Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as , “the CEGAT” for sake of brevity). The said appeals also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 3 3] Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since a special Bench of the learned CEGAT has held that the product “Sodium Rosinate” was not accessable to Excise duty, the learned Collector and the Tribunal, ought to have allowed the appeals. 4] Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, at the relevant time prescribed that, the appeal to the Collector (Appeals) for Central Excise, was to be filed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. However, the appellate authority was empowered to permit a party to file an appeal within a further period of 3 months, if the appellant satisfies that he was prevented by a sufficient cause from presenting an appeal within the prescribed period of 3 months. It can thus clearly be seen that the statutory provision prevailing at that time, required an appeal to be filed within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order. However, if the appellant made out a case that he was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting an appeal, the appellate authority could have entertained an appeal within a further period of 3 months. It can thus clearly be seen that the statute does not permit an appeal to be entertained after a period of six months. When the statute has specifically prescribed that the appeal is to be preferred within 3 months and when a discretion has been given to entertain an appeal in a further period of 3 months on the conditions stipulated therein, the appellate authority could not have entertained the appeal beyond the period of six months. In the present case, the appeals have been filed about 4 years after the date on which the orders were communicated to the petitioners. 4 5] In that view of the matter, no error could be found with the order of the Collector in refusing to entertain the appeals on the ground that they were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. For the same reason, no error also could be found in the orders passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the further appeals. The petitions , therefore, are without any merit. As such, the same are dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp