9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the order No. 89/1981 issued under F.No. 111/6/81-GC.I, dated 29-10-1981 of the Gold Control Administrator whereunder he rejected the first appeal of M/s. Mangalore Jewellery Works as time-barred under Section 80(1) of the Act. This fact is not disputed by the appellants. When this appeal was called out for hearing on 20-3-1987, the learned advocate Shri Madhu M. Patel on behalf of the appellants argued that the Tribunal should go into the merits of the appeal and not on the question of the correctness of the Gold Control Administrator s order rejecting the first appeal as time-barred. Since the advocate had not come prepared to argue the proposition as canvassed by him that the Tribunal should go into the merits ignoring the time-bar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the Collector, Shri Pattekar submitted that there was a delay of about 10 months in filing the appeal under old Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act before the Administrator. The Administrator in his order had observed that he could condone the delay upto further 3 months beyond the normal period of limitation of 3 months. But the first appeal was hopelessly time-barred and there was no discretion vested in him to condone the delay. The Gold Control Administrator, therefore, correctly rejected the appeal as time-barred. Shri Pattekar further argued that the Gold Control Administrator and the Tribunal are creatures of the statute and unless they are vested with statutory discretion to condone the time-limit, they could not do so. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djournment to submit authorities which would support his contention that the Tribunal should go into the merits of the case ignoring the first appeal being rejected as time-barred. Though the adjournment was granted the learned advocate has not been able to submit any authorities as requested by him. Instead an application is sought to be made requesting for calling of the records of the first appeal from the Gold Control Administrator and for raising other contentions like the order of the Collector not having been served on the firm or on the other partner. A further grievance has been made that the Gold Control Administrator did not hear the appellants before rejecting their appeal as time-barred, even though a request for hearing had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preference to the Revision Application. It is further seen that this appeal was drafted by an advocate and the advocate could have given correct guidance to M/s. Mangalore Jewellery Works, when it was very explicit that their appeal under Section 80 was hopelessly time-barred. This was not done and, therefore, the appellants cannot now claim that the Gold Control Administrator should have treated their appeal or a review petition in the matter. Besides, the power under old Section 81 was discretionary in the Administrator and it cannot be argued that in the present appeal with the Gold Control Administrator, the Administrator should have exercised this power suo motu when he found that the appeal under Section 80 was time-barred. A further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
