- (1.) This appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed along with Civil Misc. Application No. 222728 of 2005 (Delay Condonation), purported to be under '151 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 5 of the Act. The Court expects that the counsel drafting the application/appeal should at least read the basic provisions where under such applications/appeals are presented. There is no provision under the Central Excise Act, which makes the provisions of Section 5 Limitation Act (hereinafter called as the Act) applicable to the proceedings under the Central Excise Act. This Court consistently held that the statutory period of limitation namely 180 days from the date of receipt of the notice, if accompanied by the copy of the order aggrieved, or from the date of receipt of such order can not be extended by the Court by excluding on any ground whatsoever, whether or not covered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Reference may be made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.E. Reference Application No. (8) of 2004 M/s Good Earth Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, decided on June 4, 2004 . In the aforementioned case this Court held that the statutory period of 180 days can not be extended by invoking provisions of Section 5 of the Act. As the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under the Central Excise Act. This view has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in which one of us Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J) was the member and the same view was taken by the Court vide judgment and order dated September 13, 2005, in Central Excise Reference No. (4) of 2001, Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut v. M/s Salora International Limited . Apart from above, we find that application for condonation of delay and the affidavit filed in support thereof (sworn by D.S. Chaubey, claiming to be the clerk to Sri K.C. Sinha, Advocate) shows that it has not been drafted diligently and that the said matter though serious, has been dealt with perfunctorily. At the out set we find that the facts mentioned in paras 1 to 7 of the affidavit have not been mentioned or referred to in the affidavit of D.S. Chaubey, which has been filed in support of the said application. Only mention made in paragraph 1 of the affidavit is that the deponent named above is the pairokar and clerk to Sri K.C. Sinha, Advocate doing pairvi on behalf of the appellant and is authorised to file this affidavit on behalf of the appellant and as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the case deposed to below.
(2.) Curiously enough the contents given below thereafter is the swearing clause only. The swearing clause reads : "I, the deponent named above do hereby declare that the contents of paragraph No. 1 of this affidavit and those of paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the accompanying application are true to my personal knowledge; that the contents of paragraphs No.. of the accompanying application are true to record; that the contents of paragraphs No...of the accompanying application are based on information received, that contents of paragraph No. 9 of the accompanying application are based on legal advice, which all I believe to be true that no part it is false and nothing material has been concealed."
(3.) The aforementioned affidavit nowhere mentions that the paras of the application are being sworn. Mere mention in the swearing clause is not enough, more over we fail to appreciate how para 9 of the application has been sworn, which reads : "That in the interest of justice the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned and the Appeal may kindly be treated as if the same has been filed within time.";