9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1986. The appeal was however, presented in the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal on 24-11-1986. lt is thus barred by limitation by 4 months and 21 days. The Date Chart accompanying the affidavit filed in support of the application gives the following material dates - DATE CHART Receipt of order-in-appeal No. S/49-753/83 CL/VL, dated 25-3-1986 in the Custom House. 3-4-1986 The matter regarding pending claim brought to the notice of concerned group by Assistant Collector/Refunds. 28-7-1986 Efforts were made to trace out the file in the Group. The clerk concerned was also called on Saturday to trace out the file. from 28-7-1986 to 20-8-1986 The file was submitted to Assistant Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a decision of the Tribunal in Gupta Trading Company v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1987 (27) E.L.T. 510 (Tribunal)], wherein it was held that additional duty of customs being Customs duty is not refundable under exemption notification issued , under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. He also stated that in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the date 28-7-1986. should be read as 20-8-1986 as being the date when the matter was brought to the notice of the concerned Group by Assistant Collector (Refunds). He also submitted that the period of delay between 20-8-1986 to 24-11 -1986 was sufficiently and properly explained and therefore, the delay in presenting appeal should be condoned. In support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing decisions - 1. Ramlal and Others v. Rewacoail fields Ltd. -AIR 1962 SC 361, 2. Bikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner and Others - AIR 1977 SC 2221. 3. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. -1987 (28) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal) = 1987 (9) ETR 41. 5. The Time Chart showing movement of the file has already been reproduced above. Accepting Shri Sunder Rajan s contention that the matter came to the notice of the authorities for the first time on 28-8-1986, it would be seen that on this date itself, limitation for filing appeal had expired. The applicant and his subordinates, therefore, should have been business like and vigilant in taking all steps necessary for filing appeal as early as possible. The Chart howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
