9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962. The said revision petition was filed after coming into existence of the Tribunal and the same was transferred to this Tribunal. The Registry had issued a letter to the appellant on 3rd November, 1983 intimating the defect that the revision petition has to be filed in the prescribed Form C.A.3 with a fee of Rs. 200/-; instead, Rs. 125/- was paid as revision fee. The said order passed by the Board was received by the party on 11th May, 1982 and the appellant had presented a fresh appeal on Form C.A.3 on the 27th December, 1983 with a covering letter. 2. Shri P.B. Mallik, Dy. Manager (Finance Claims) of the appellant Company has appeared on behalf of the appellant and has pleaded that the appellant was misled by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal should be dismissed being barred by limitation. 4. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late Submission of the appeal and he had filed a revision petition in a wrong quarter. In it a settled law that an appeal filed in a wrong court through bona fide mistake may be considered as sufficient cause so that the time during which an appeal has been pending in a wrong court may be excluded and the court may excuse the delay. Balwant v. Gomani, Kamiruddin v. Bisnupriya, 33 CWN 76(77); Kunwar Rajendra v. Rai Rajeshwar, AIR 1937 PC 276; Anadi Ram v. Mt. Chaduri, AIR 1956 Assam 63; State v. Man Mohan Lal, AIR 1966 Or 219 (n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot change his stand. He has also pleaded that the appellant had imported goods worth Rs. 1,91,474.91p and fine in lieu of confiscation is Rs. 10,000/- which is about 5% of the value of the imported goods and no penalty had been imposed. He has pleaded that no inference is called for and the orders passed by the lower authorities should be confirmed. 6. In reply, the learned authorised representative has conceded that A.M. Policy 1980-81 is applicable. He has submitted that it was not an electric motor but spare parts. He has also pleaded that Public Notice issued in 1978-79 is applicable and in Chapter 9 of A.M. Policy 1980-81 the restricted list has been omitted whereas in A.M. Policy 1978-79 the restricted list was there and as su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
