9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 322 - AT - CustomsApplication for condonation of delay - Considering the submissions the appellants and found that the order of the Apex Court dated 10/10/1991 is very clear, wherein direction was given to the appellants that if they want to contest the case, the proper forum is Tribunal (CEGAT), which the appellant did not opt and they continued the matter with the Hon ble High Court of Bombay - Therefore, do not find that the appellants were under bonafide belief to contest the matter before the High Court of Bombay. - the application for condonation of delay dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal along with stay application and application for condonation of delay. Analysis: The appellants filed an appeal along with a stay application and an application for condonation of delay. The delay was explained by the appellant's advocate, stating that the impugned order was received on a specific date and challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The High Court allowed import clearance upon furnishing a bank guarantee for 50% of the duties. Subsequently, the Revenue challenged this order before the Hon'ble apex Court, which directed the appellants to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Despite this order, the appellants continued the matter with the High Court. After disposal of their writ petition in 2010, the appellants filed the current appeal, seeking condonation of delay based on their belief that they contested the matter before the High Court in good faith. They relied on certain case laws to support their contention. Upon hearing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the order of the Apex Court was clear in directing the appellants to contest the case before the Tribunal, which they did not opt for, choosing to continue with the High Court instead. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not under a bona fide belief to contest the matter before the High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, along with the appeal and stay application. The Tribunal also noted that the case laws cited by the appellant's advocate were based on different facts and hence could not be relied upon in this case. The decision was dictated in court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
