9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-7-1985 and applying 3 months limitation, the appeal should have been filed by 16-10-1985. The appeal was forwarded to the Tribunal by an arrangement of the appellants with the Indian Airlines through hand of pilot on 28-10-1985 and was received in the Tribunal on 1-11-1985. It is thus barred by limitation by 16 days. 3. In the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit sworned by one Shri Prem Shanker, Asstt. Collector of Customs, Tribunal Coordination Unit of the new Customs House, Bombay who has been authorised by appellant - Collector of Customs to present this appeal on his behalf, it is urged that Collector of Customs, Bombay approved the proposal of filing the appeal against the impugned order on 16-10-1985. The affida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0-1985 15. Sets got prepared from outside as the office machine was out of order 28-10-1985 16. Appeal sent by hand of pilot on 28-10-1985 4. At the hearing of the application, Sh. A.S. Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative representing the applicant-Collector of Customs, Bombay and Shri M. Venkataraman, Advocate for the respondents non-applicant were heard. Sh. Sunder Rajan relying on Supreme Court decision in Ramlal Others v. Rewa Coalfields 1962 S.C. 361, a decision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a provision analogous to sub-section (5) of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 which arms the Appellate Tribunal to admit an appeal or a Memorandum of cross objection after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired. He also submitted that the applicant had failed to make out a case justifying condonation of delay between 17-10-1985 to 1-11-1985 i.e. the date after expiry of limitation till the Memo of appeal was received in the Tribunal. Though in a written reply to the application, reliance was placed by respondents on a number of decisions, during arguments, Shri M. Venkataraman relied on the following two decisions :- 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh Another v. Bactchala Balaiah AIR 1985 AP 52 2. State of Bihar v. Dhajadhari Rai AIR 1985 Patna 187 (These two decisions dealt with the question of sufficient cause for condonation of delay where appeal or application were filed by State Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar). In the Andhr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot have been typewritten. It is not shown or suggested why this could not be done. There is no presumption that Government work of this nature i.e. drafting and preparing sets could not have been done merely because these days were holidays. On the other hand, it is well known that urgent administrative and official work is done even on holidays. In fact, from the time-chart it is observed that requisite sets for Memo of appeal were got prepared on 28-10-1985 from outside the office as the office machine was out of order. We observe that not much of drafting or preparing of papers for this was necessary. If this could be got done by outside machine on 28-10-1985, we do not see why this could not have been got done earlier. The information h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Special Director and at various places like Delhi and Madras. Such is not the case here. The decision to file appeal had to be taken only by the Collector. That decision had already been taken. Collector was himself the appellant. After he accorded approval, he was under a duty to see that his decision to file appeal was implemented at the earliest. That was not done and nearly two weeks time was taken for the purpose which was avoidable. Besides, applying the ratio of that decision, it has also to be seen whether any negligence is attributable to the appellants. Between 17-7-1985 to 16-10-1985, i.e. a date before expiry of limitation, the file moved mechanically without any sense of urgency and it was only on 16-10-1985 that Collector app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient cause cannot be construed too liberally because the party in default is the Government. The Supreme Court held it is no doubt true that whether it is a Government or a private party, the provisions of law applicable are same unless the statute itself makes any distinction". We, however, need not enter into the legal effect of the High Court not having noticed this decision on the point. It is sufficient to say that in the present appeal, it is not shown that any collective decision as in the Karnataka High Court decision was involved. All that is seen is that decision to file appeal had to be taken by Collector of Customs which he did on a date a day before expiry of 3 months limitation. 9. As against the Karnataka High Court de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
