9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against Board's Order No. 391-92 of 1979 under Customs Act Section 128. - Appeal against Board's Order No. 66-67 of 1981 under Customs Act Section 128. - Request for treating appeals as revision applications under old Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. - Contention of appeals being time-barred under Section 128. - Argument regarding denial of hearings by the Board. - Examination of appellant's submissions and Board's orders. - Consideration of natural justice principles in denying hearings to the appellants. - Final decision on rejecting the appeals. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment involves two appeals filed against the Board's orders under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The first appeal, CD(T)(BOM)300/80, was against the Board's rejection of two appeals filed by an appellant against a penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The second appeal, CD(T)(BOM)523/81, was filed by widows against a penalty imposed on their deceased husband. Both appeals were deemed time-barred by the Board under Section 128. 2. The appellants contended that the appeals should be treated as revision applications under old Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. However, due to the unavailability of records, the hearings proceeded solely on the question of whether the appeals were time-barred or not. 3. The appellant's representative argued that the widows had the locus to file appeals under Section 142(l)(c) of the Customs Act and that the appeals were filed within the time limit of old Section 130(1). The denial of hearings by the Board was challenged, claiming it rendered the Board's orders nullities in law. 4. On the other hand, the Collector's representative contended that the appeals were correctly rejected as time-barred under Section 128. The denial of hearings was justified as per the discretion of the Appellate authority under Section 128(2) of the Customs Act. 5. The Tribunal reserved its orders on the preliminary issue of time-barred appeals. Upon examining submissions, it was found that the appeals were correctly rejected under Section 128 and that the denial of hearings did not violate principles of natural justice. The Tribunal rejected the appeals based on the above findings. 6. The judgment emphasizes that the appeals were correctly rejected as time-barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the denial of hearings did not violate natural justice principles, considering the inability to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. 7. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals based on their time-barred nature under Section 128, emphasizing that the denial of hearings did not amount to a lack of compliance with natural justice principles. The decision was made after a detailed analysis of the submissions and relevant provisions of the Customs Act.
|
