9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Customs on 14-5-1984 alongwith the Solicitors forwarding letter dated 14-5-1984. The mistaken presentation of the appeal in the Office of the Appellate Collector was sought to be explained by stating that inadvertently the applicants Solicitors forwarding letter of 14th May, 1984 was addressed to the Appellate Collector of Customs. Accordingly, the applicants Solicitors despatch clerk sent the appeal through the peon to the Office of the Appellate Collector of Customs. It was further stated in the application that in or about the fourth week of July, 1984, the applicants Solicitors intended to send the compilation to the Office of the Tribunal and at that time the Solicitors Assistant who was handling the matter found the inadver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Solicitors. He was enrolled as a Solicitor in April, 1983. He was aware that under the Customs Act, 1962 the appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order and on the day he prepared the appeal he had several matters on hand to attend to and in haste and hurriedly, inadvertently he dictated a letter addressed to the Appellate Collector and forwarded the appeal on 14-5-1984 through the despatch department instead of addressing it to the Registrar, Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. On 29-6-1984 he went to U.K. for appearing Solicitors Exam, and as such, another Assistant Solicitor handled the appeal papers and during the 4th week of July, 1984, the said Assistant Solicitor found from a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en stated that after the receipt of the records from the applicants on 10-9-1984, the appeal was filed in the Office of the Tribunal on 11-9-1984 alongwith the application for condonation of delay. Finally, he stated that due to bonafide mistake on his part, the appeal was filed the wrong authority, and he respectfully submits that his clients should not suffer for the bonafide and honest mistake on his part. 4. During the hearing of this application, Shri Taraporevala submitted that the order appealed against was communicated to the applicants on 27-2-1984 and within the prescribed period of limitation, namely, within 3 months from that day the appeal had been filed. But unfortunately it was filed before the wrong forum by inadvertence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely because his chosen Advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. 5. Shri Gidwani, learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed this application. He contended that the applicants were communicated with the order appealed against on 27-2-1984. They should have filed the appeal within 3 months thereafter i.e., on or before 26-5-1984, but they had preferred the appeal on 11-9-1984. Thus, there was a delay of 3 months and under law the applicants were required to explain each days delay satisfactorily, and the applicants have failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay. Shri Gidwani pointed out that accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Shri Gidwani submitted that the Solicitors who claims to know law cannot plead ignorance of the basic fact of the presentation of the appeal before a proper forum. He was surprised at the indifference and bureaucratic attitude. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1962 S.C. page 361, Shri Gidwani submitted that in the absence of satisfactory explanation regarding each days delay the application may be rejected. Shri Gidwani further submitted that the plea of the Solicitors that presentation before a wrong forum was by inadvertence cannot be believed. He contended that the procedural rules rquired the applicants to send alongwith their appeal the demand draft of Rs. 200/-. The Solicitors did not send the demand draft a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Collector, and therefore, he waited for the deponent to join the service which he did on 6th August, 1984. It is not explained why the Senior Solicitor had such a distrust of his junior colleague. One cannot appreciate the attitude of the Senior Solicitor. As a matter of fact there was no need for the Senior Solicitor to wait for the deponent to join the duty for verifying the presentation of the appeal. The facts narrated in the affidavit exhibits indifference on the part of the Solicitors. Shri Gidwani is right in contending that the responsible Solicitor have acted irresponsibly and there was lack of diligence and indifference on their part. No explanation is forthcoming in the affidavit as to whether any demand draft was sent alongwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
