9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 369 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay - stay applications filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands - Held that - Appeal is to be preferred within 90 days of the communication of the impugned order. As the impugned order has been received by the applicant on 27.09.2011 and appeals have been preferred on 26.12.2011 which is within three months of the communication of the order, therefore, delay is condoned. For stay application, AR sought time to go through the records. Therefore, matter is adjourned for consideration of stay application on 25.03.3013.
Issues:
1. Request for waiver of pre-deposit of impugned demands through stay applications. 2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Analysis: Issue 1: Request for waiver of pre-deposit of impugned demands through stay applications The applicants sought waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands by filing stay applications. The counsel for the applicants argued that they did not receive the impugned order and only obtained it through an RTI application. They filed the appeal within the stipulated time after receiving the order. The AR, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order was sent to the applicants' address in 2007 and was also displayed on the notice board. However, there was no concrete evidence of dispatch to the applicant's address. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that appeals should be filed within 90 days of receiving the impugned order. Since the applicants filed the appeal within three months of receiving the order on 27.09.2011, the delay was condoned. Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeals The delay in filing the appeals was a crucial aspect of the case. The counsel for the applicants argued that the delay should be condoned as they only received the impugned order through an RTI application and filed the appeal promptly upon receipt. The AR, however, highlighted that the impugned order was sent to the applicants' address in 2007 and displayed on the notice board. Despite this, there was a lack of evidence regarding the dispatch to the applicant's address. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided that since the appeals were filed within three months of receiving the order, the delay in filing was condoned. The matter was adjourned for further consideration of the stay application, with status quo to be maintained until the next hearing scheduled for 25.03.2013.
|
