JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 at the instance of NF Railway challenging the judgment and award dated 17.06.2010 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the railway authority to make payment of Rs. 3,22,016/- to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realisation failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum till realisation. 2. The Railway claim case vide OA.I/GHY/413/2005 was registered on a claim petition submitted by the respondent herein wherein it was stated that 46,260 kattas each weighing 50 kg of wheat was booked from NRW and was destined to deliver at SCL under in-voice No. 1/167487 dated 24/25.10.2002. But as per Delivery Certificate issued on 19.11.2002, 4 kattas of 50 Kgs each i.e. 200 Kgs of wheat was found complete short and 1158 kattas was found in torn and loose condition for which 40052 kgs of wheat was found short. According to the claimant, there was total shortage of 40252 kgs of wheat and this is why the claimant prayed that an order be passed directing the NF Railway to make payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per Kg. The claimant prayed that the compensation would be Rs. 4,02,520/- along with cost and interest etc. 3. On being notified, the NF Railway appeared and submitted written reply on 11.06.2010 denying the validity of claim and also challenging the service of notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act, 1989. According to the railway authority, the consignment was booked under ‘said to contain’ clause and loading was not supervised by the railway staffs. Under such circumstances, no compensation would be payable to the claimant. 4. The learned Tribunal put the parties to prove their respective cases after framing following 4 issues :- 1. Whether Notice U/s 106 was served by the applicant in time? 2. Whether the respondent has taken due care after the entrustment of the consignment to them and delivered the entire consignment intact at the destination? 3. Whether the applicant proves that they have received short delivery at destination and that they are entitled for the claim? 4. Relief and Order? 5. 2. Whether the respondent has taken due care after the entrustment of the consignment to them and delivered the entire consignment intact at the destination? 3. Whether the applicant proves that they have received short delivery at destination and that they are entitled for the claim? 4. Relief and Order? 5. The claimant produced Delivery Certificate to show that there was shortage in delivery but the railway authority did not produce the seal and card labels from its side and did not produce any record whatsoever. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials whatever made available to the court, the learned Tribunal arrived at the finding that in view of the short delivery certificate issued by the railway authority, short delivery of 40,252 Kgs of wheat stood established. Considering the previous judgment and order passed by the same Tribunal where each kilogram of wheat was valued at Rs. 8/-, the learned Tribunal applied the same principle in the present case and accordingly quantified the compensation to Rs. 3,22,016/- and directed the railway authority to make payment of the amount within a period of 3 months along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum failing which payment of interest at the rate of 7% till realisation was ordered. The learned Tribunal also allowed cost of Rs. 4,000/- and legal practitioner’s fee of Rs. 2,800/-. This judgment and order passed on 17.06.2010 has been called in question in the present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. UK Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. DCK Hazarika, learned counsel for the sole respondent. I have perused the lower court records. 7. Mr. DCK Hazarika, at the beginning of the hearing, has raised preliminary objection as to its maintainability. He submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 17.06.2010 but the appeal was presented on 12.10.2010 before this court which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Mr. DCK Hazarika submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is a code in itself which provides for the period of limitation and it does not provide any scope for condoning delay in the nature of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Mr. DCK Hazarika submits that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is a code in itself which provides for the period of limitation and it does not provide any scope for condoning delay in the nature of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It does not contemplate exclusion of time in the nature of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is not applicable to a proceeding under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Mr. DCK Hazarika has also placed reliance on a reported judgment of this court in the case of Union of India v. Jasiruddin Talukdar reported in (2011) 2 GLT 497 wherein this court held that Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to railway claims proceedings. According to Mr. DCK Hazarika, the appeal having been presented beyond the period of limitation, the same is incompetent and is liable to be dismissed on that point alone without entering into the merit. 8. Per contra, Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway, submits that immediately after passing of the impugned judgment and order on 17.06.2010, the appellant filed an application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and order and the same was made available only on 20.07.2010. Thereafter the railway authorities took steps for preferring appeal before this court under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The memorandum of appeal was ultimately presented on 12.10.2010. If the period required for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order is considered under section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appeal should be deemed to have been filed in time and so there is no infirmity in presentation of the appeal. I have perused the earlier judgment passed by this court in the case of Union of Inida v. Jasiruddin Talukdar (supra). In that case question arose as to whether in an appeal preferred under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the provisions of the Limitation Act will apply. This court considered the provision of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and held that the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, would not apply to the present case where a special law prescribes the period of limitation for preferring appeal. Accordingly, this court held that Limitation Act would not have any application in that case. Accordingly, this court held that Limitation Act would not have any application in that case. It was held that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 did not confer any jurisdiction on court for condoning delay in preferring an appeal. 9. Obviously, the aforesaid judgment is binding on the present bench. Since section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for the period of limitation but it does not provide for any provision for exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy as has been done in case of section 12 of the Limitation Act. There is no question of excluding any time for computation of period of limitation. As has been held by this court, Limitation Act does not apply to a proceeding under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the present appeal is time barred under section 23(3) of the same Act. This being the position, appeal itself is incompetent. 10. Since it has been found that the appeal is not maintainable being time barred, the appeal stands dismissed. 11. Send down the records. 12. Interim order, if any, stands automatically vacated.