9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covers sports goods, sports equipment and sports requisites along with their spares, accessories and consumables. In the two impugned orders-in-appeal passed, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that appellants are not eligible for exemption since the goods imported were broadcasting equipment and are not covered under the category of sports goods and sports equipments. He has also taken a view that broadcasting equipments imported by the appellants cannot be considered as sports requisites since the same are not required for marathon race. However, since the goods have been re-exported the benefit of Notification 27/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 was extended. 2. The appellants have filed appeal with a delay of 62 days and in support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring her absence. He drew our attention to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramnath Sahu where the Hon'ble Court observed that in a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient cause" or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be a straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. Further he also submits that the Tribunal has been insisting for explanation for each day's delay when there are delays in filing appeal by the Revenue, yet in this case the appellant have not at all explained the delay satisfactorily. Therefore, he urges that the application for COD be rejected. 3. We have considered the submissions made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Normally, one presumes that the directors of companies would be more careful and would be able to understand the consequence better than others. Even in such a case the Hon'ble High Court had allowed the COD and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Nath Sahu had observed as follows :- "11. Thus it becomes plain that the expression "sufficient cause" within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of the code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In a particular case whether explanation furnished would constitute "sufficient ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exception, more so, when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. In fact in this case, the negligence has been on the part of a clerk and we cannot say that there was negligence or want of bona fide on the part of AFL. Therefore, we find that both these decisions cited by the ld. advocate are relevant and are applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we condone the delay and take up the stay application. 5. We find that the appeals field by the appellant have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification 146/94-Cus. The alternative plea for exemption under Notification 3/89-Cus. was made before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
