9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : S.C. Jain. Member (J)]. - Briefly stated, the facts of the case are apparent on record that the Respondents imported 200 kgs. Calcium Tungstate and the goods were assessed to duty under Chapter 32.04/12(1) of CTA and Countervailing duty was charged under Item 68 of Central Excise. The assessee filed the refund claim alleging that the assessment should be under Chapter 28.01/58 but the Assi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal. 3. The appellant contested this application for condonation of delay. 4. We have heard Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, JDR for the Department and Shri R.G. Sheikh, Advocate for the Respondents and gone through the record. 5. As per own admission of the appellant, the order appealed against was communicated on 25-7-1983 and the time limit for 3 months for filing the appeal had expired on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s discretion it should condone the delay. Delay of each day has to be explained satisfactorily by the party. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. (reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361) held that the proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court. 7. Keeping in view this lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage. The department has not given any detail as to how this touch time was taken for the study of the judgment which was communicated to the department as far back as 25-7-1983. The delay of 9 months shows that the departmental authorities were negligent and careless in not pursuing the matter promptly which has resulted in delay in filing this appeal. For want of any sufficient cause and for not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
