D.N. Panda, Member(J) - (1.)LEARNED Counsel Shri A.K. Bhattacharjee appearing for the applicant/appellant company submits that the appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation, having been filed on 24 -5 -2005, as against the communication of the Order of Adjudication on 6 -9 -2004. The first Appellate Authority without showing any reason dismissed the appeal for delay and such order was passed mechanically. Learned Counsel submits that the present appeal filed before the Tribunal is within the time and the matter of stay may be considered.
(2.)LEARNED D.R. for the Revenue submits that the delay in filing appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was more than eight months and such fragrant violation of law should not be accommodated by this forum.
(3.)RECORDS transpire that the impugned order before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was communicated to the applicant/appellant -company on 6 -9 -2004 and the appeal against such order was preferred on 24 -5 -2005. Admittedly, there was a delay of more than eight months. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay, if an appeal is filed beyond sixty days, subject to the condition that the said period beyond 60 days does not exceed thirty days, and beyond such a period, if any appeal is filed, he has no power to admit the same. The learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant company, however, urged to condone such delay invoking Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is a settled principle of law that express provisions of the statute are to be carried out and inherent power does not override the express power conferred under the statute. It has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of ITO, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 SC 430 that powers incidental or ancillary are to render justice and this does not mean to direct Authorities to act beyond statutory mandate. Following the ratio in the cases of CIT v. Anjum M.H.Ghaswale reported in 2001 AIR SCW 4318 and JMD Syndicate v. CIT reported in AIR 1971 SC 1348, holding that a statutory authority cannot traverse beyond the confines of law and cannot grant relief by bypassing the time of limitation, the appellant should not urge for condonation of delay beyond limit. The Apex Court has also held in the case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. that Court cannot direct the Adjudicating Authorities (who are creatures of the Act) to ignore the limit and act contrary to the law.