9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sident (J)]. - This order disposes of the appellant s application for condonation of delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal. 2. The hearing leading to the impugned order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, Camp Hyderabad, took place on 16-4-1982. The order was communicated to the appellant on 5-11-1982. The order bears the date of issue 29-10-1982 but does not bear the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t six months limitation applicable to a revision - a right available when the appeal was heard in April 1982 - would apply to the appellant s case. It also appears that as the impugned order did not mention the date of order and as the matter had been heard in April 1982, even though the order was communicated on 5-11-1982 and bore the date of issue 29-10-1982, Shri Ramamurthy felt that the same h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Ramamurthy relied on Ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat (AIR 1970 S.C. 1). It was also given out that the 5 Members Bench Tribunal decision in Amin Chand Payarelal, v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 126 (Tribunal) holding that the intention of the Act was to take away old rights came much later and at the time Shri Ramamurthy expressed opinion or adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the contention of the Revenue before the Tribunal on this point and in appeal before the Supreme Court has been that the earlier limitation would govern such right. He had no particular further comments to make. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. It does appear to us that the delay in presenting appeal has been due to legal advice. It is not necessary for us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
