1. By his order dated 9-1-69, Respondent No. 3 imposed a penalty of Rs. 250/- on the petitioner and directed confiscation of 926 Kgs. of tobacco. He also levied duty on 1075 kgs. and odd of tobacco on the ground of irregularities by the petitioner who is a tobacco grower. In consequence of this order, Respondent No. 4 issued an order on 6-8-71 which is a demand notice for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,401.69P. on 6-12-71, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act under which a period of three months is provided for preferring an appeal against an appealable order, from the date of communication of the order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was far beyond the period of limitation and consequently, Respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal on the ground that appeal was time barred. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the 1st Respondent which was also dismissed. It is now well settled by the Supreme Court as well as several decisions of this court that the Indian Limitation Act is applicable only to Courts and not to any Government department. When such is the case and when there is no specific provision in the said Act, it cannot be said that the authorities have power to condone the delay. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 also dismissed the revision. It is this order of the 1st Respondent that is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Mr. E.D. Nathan appearing for the petitioner attacks the impugned order on the ground that it is not a speaking order. I regret, I cannot accede to this contention. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Government of India have considered the points raised by the petitioner in the revision petition and observed that the rejection of the appeal as time-barred under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act was in order, and the impugned order was correct in law. A perusal of the order in appeal would show that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred.
3. In these circumstances, there is no substance in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.