9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led non-applicant, were heard and the papers perused. 3. The impugned order was communicated to the applicants on 2-5-1987 under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. An appeal has to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order under sub-section 5 ibid. The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal after expiry of the relevant period under sub-section (3) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. The Memo of appeal was despatched to the Tribunal by speed post on 29-10-1987 and received in the Tribunal on 30-10-1987. The 3 months limitation under Section 129A(3) of the Act expired on 1-8-1987. The appeal was originally not accompanied by an application for condona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the Hon ble Judge 10.8.87 Certified copy applied for 8.10.87 Stamp papers called for by Registrar and copy delivered to Cochin Advocate 9.10.87 Copy received by us in Bombay subsequently realised that in the hurry to file the appeal, application for condonation of delay had not been filed. (Not mentioned in Time Chart) 29.10.87 Memo of appeal despatched by speed post on 29-10-87 and received on 30-10-87 in the Tribunal 25.11.87 Condonation of delay application filed in Tribunal." In support of his argument, Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, relied on the following two decisions of Madras High Court - 1. The Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. v. The Board of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appeal, was not bona fide. All that can be said is that he should not have by-passed the statutory remedy and resorted to Article 226 of the Constitution straightaway. But, in prosecuting the petition in this court surely the appellant thought that it was perhaps possible for him to get the remedy straightaway which was a mistaken impression as it turned out to be." 7. The other decision in J.M. Bhansali and Others v. The State of Madras (Supra) holds as under - We are unable to share the view of the Tribunal or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that, in the circumstances of these cases, sufficient cause was not shown. In deciding the question, the most relevant factor to be taken into account is whether the party concerned has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned to think in filing the appeals was more due to the time taken by the pendency of the writ petitions in this Court. We are of opinion that on the facts and circumstances of these cases the delay ought to have been condoned. The petitions are allowed. The orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and of the Tribunal are set aside and the Appellate Commissioner is directed to take the appeals on his file and dispose of them in accordance with law." 8. There is another decision not cited by the parties in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. M/s. Parson Tools Plants, Kanpur (AIR 1975 SC 1939) which holds that Section 14(2) of Limitation Act, 1963 is in terms not applicable to proceedings under UP Sales Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
