R. C. Chavan, J. - (1.)Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent of parties.
(2.)This appeal raises the following short question : "whether the Collector deciding an appeal under section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition act, 1949 can condone under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the delay in preferring such an appeal -
(3.)Facts, which gave rise to the controversy, have been elaborately enumerated in the erudite judgment of the learned Single judge, who dismissed appellant's Writ Petition no. 4962 of 2006. The appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 46,11,394. 80 towards the arrears of excise duty by demand notice dated 23-6-2003. The appellant preferred appeal under Section 137 of the Bombay Prohibition act on 10-6-2005 challenging the said demand notice. The period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 137 (1) of the Bombay prohibition Act expired on 25-8-2003 and thus the appeal had been filed substantially after the prescribed period was over. The appellant sought condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The Collector held that there was no provision authorizing him to condone delay and, therefore, rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently disposed of the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 21-12-2006.