9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants on 17-7-1985 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed period, holds that question of diligence during the relevant period is not relevant in considering sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, 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 Andhra Pradesh case, delay due to delayed instructions from Govt. and other Departmental correspondence or consultation was held not constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. The del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nown 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 however, is silent on the point as to when office machine went out of order. 7. As for Shri Sunder Rajan's reliance on the Karnataka High Court decision in Union of India & Another v. Suresh N. Shetty 1986 (25) E.L.T. 657 (Karn.) = 1986 (7) ECC 171 for the argument t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der 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 approved filing of appeal. This period, in view of the Supreme Court decision is to be ignored for examining sufficient cause within sub-section (5) of Section 129A analogous to Section 5 of Limitation Act but when we come to the question of negligence on the part of appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 decision, in AIR 1985 A.P. 52 (supra) and AIR 1985 Patna 187, delay due to inter-departmental correspondence or consultation or office procedure was held as not constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Following these two decisions, delay in filing appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
