S.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 13th February, 1979, passed by respondent No. 3, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before the respondent No. 2, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. The order dated 13-2-1979 had been served on the petitioner on 15-2-1979. The appeal had been filed on 28-5-1979. The period of limitation for filing the appeal prescribed under Section 35 of the Act as it stood at that time was only three months. The aforesaid appeal, which had been filed on 28-5-1979 was therefore barred by eleven days on the date of its filing. In this view of the matter, the petitioner prayed for the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal itself.
(2.) The Appellate Authority rejected the aforesaid appeal as time barred on account of the same having been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, without going into the merits of the appeal and also without going into the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds put forward by the appellant seeking condonation of delay. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by means of revision under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, before the Central Government but that revision was also dismissed vide its order dated 22-11-1982, without going into the merits, holding that the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal at the threshold on account of the bar of limitation.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the aforesaid orders passed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority on the grounds: that the appeal filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected without going into the question of sufficiency of the cause shown by the petitioner seeking condonation of the short delay of about 11 days in filing the appeal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, the provisions contained in Section 5 of the said Act had become automatically applicable and the period of limitation prescribed in Section 35 of the Act could be determined with the aid and assistance of Section 5 of the Limitation Act but the respondent Authorities have acted with manifest illegality in proceeding on the assumption that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection of the aforesaid provisions and it is on this account that the said Authorities did not go into the question of condonation of delay and had illegally rejected the appeal as not entertainable on account of the same having been filed after the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Act.;