Full Judgment
2. Notice of hearing was issued to the parties. Shri M.M. Mathur, the learned Jt. CDR, has appeared on behalf of the applicant and none for the respondents. However, there is an application for adjournment from the respondents. Since the matter is time bound, we are not inclined to grant the adjournment and proceed to hear the matter ex parte.
3. Shri Mathur has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay as well as time chart. He pleaded that substantial question of law is involved. He further argued that the applicant was vigilant all the time and as such the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in late filing of the Reference Application. He pleaded for the condonation of delay.
4. We have heard the learned Jt. CDR Shri Mathur and have gone through the records. The Reference Application has been presented under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. For the proper appreciation of the legal position, Section 130(1) is reproduced below : * * * * * * * 5. The Reference application in the present case was presented on 29-10-1993 and there is a delay of 222 days. We have gone through the application for Condonation of Delay as well as time chart. The application for Condonation of Delay is not supported with an affidavit. On a perusal of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, shows that the Tribunal has been given powers to condone the delay only upto 30 days. In the matter before us the delay is of 222 days. This Tribunal is a creature of Statute and we are bound to proceed within the four corners of the law as provided under the Statute. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (SC) has held as under :- "After the matter was heard for some time and it was indicated that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefor under S. 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, learned counsel for the Appellant sought leave to withdraw the appeal. We accord their leave to withdraw the appeal but make it clear that the order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal suffers from no infirmity. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the appellant may seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it may be advised." 6. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again has reaffirmed its view in the case of Collector of C.E. Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills reported in 1987 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.) [para 6] and had held as under :- 7. This Tribunal had occasion to deal with a similar situation in the case of Brij Kishore Maheswari and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 384 (Tri.) and para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced below :- 8. The Tribunal in another judgment in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v.ShriMansa Ram &Anr., reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 544 and 124 (Tri.) (paras 2,3 and 4) had held as under :- 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that this Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay of beyond 30 days. In the result, the application for condonation of delay is rejected.
10. Since, we have rejected the application for condonation of delay, the Reference Application is also dismissed being hit by limitation and we are not going into the merits of the same.