Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 14 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Hongo India(P) Ltd.& Anr on 27 March, 2009
The pleaded facts alongwith the documents on record and the competing arguments have received our due consideration. Before adverting to the dissensus bearing on the merits, apt it would be to deal with the aspect of delay for which the petitioner's revision under Section 35EE had been rejected. Indubitably, by the time it filed its revision petition under Section 35EE, not only the period of limitation prescribed therefor had expired but also the term of relaxation grantable had lapsed. The power of the High Court to condone the delay in presentation of reference application under the unamended Section 35H(1) of the Act beyond the prescribed time by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was dilated upon in Hongo India (P) Ltd. (supra). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, on an elaborate survey of the provisions of the Act, with particular reference to Sections 35, 35B, 35EE, 35G and 35H, in authoritative terms, concluded that the scheme thereof predicated complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In doing so, not only the decisions suggesting a different approach vis-a-vis other enactments were clearly distinguished in the face of the framework of the Act, it sustained the verdict of the jurisdictional High Court sharing the same view against its power to condone the delay after the expiry of the period prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act. Their Lordships, with reference to Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, propounded that even in a case where such special law did not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of that enactment by an express reference, it was nonetheless open to the court to examine whether and to what extent, the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject matter and scheme of the special law, did exclude their operation. It was held that the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, therefore, was not to be judged in terms thereof, but by the provisions of the Central Excise Act, which suggest that the time limit prescribed thereunder is absolute and unextendable by a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That it is the duty of the court to respect the legislative intent and that liberal interpretation contrary thereto ought not be granted, was also underlined.
Consolidated Engg.Enterprises vs Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors on 3 April, 2008
The Hon'ble Apex Court in this factual background referring to Section 34(1) and its earlier decision in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department & Ors, (2008) 7 SCC 169 held that in absence of any exclusion of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the same would apply to the application under Section 34 of the Act. Taking that view, it was held that the application filed by the appellant before the district court was in time.