Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (5) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ling the appeal. Mr. Mookherjee was then asked whether he made any application for condonation of delay. He replied that he could not imagine that a letter addressed 5 or 6 days before the last date would take so long to reach the Collector (Appeals) s office. He had no answer to a question as to why the appeal could not be posted 15 or 20 days or even a month before the last date. 2. It is clear that the appellants filed their appeal in the last few remaining days of the time limit allowed by law for filing an appeal. In doing so, they took a risk and failed to take sufficient care to protect their own interest. They should have known that there are many imponderables between the posting of a letter and its arrival at the destination. Wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rits. 4. I accordingly reject this appeal, because the appeal before the Collector (Appeals) was time-barred. 5. [Per : M. Santhanam, Member (J)]. - I regret, I am unable to agree with the decision of my Ld. Brother, H.R. Syiem, Member (T) in this case. From the facts set out by him, it is seen that the appeal has been sent by post to the Collector (Appeals) on 30-10-1982. The appeal should have reached his Office by 5-11-1982 but was received by the Collector (Appeals) on 6-12-1982. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of one day. The appellants have stated, in the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal that from Hirakud to Calcutta normally, REGISTERED article should not take more than three days an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r to the expiry of the limitation period, the Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. The ratio of that citation would apply to the present facts and I am of the view that it is a fit case in which the delay should have been condoned. I, therefore, hold that the appeal should be allowed, and remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for consideration of the merits. 6. [Per : G. Sankaran, President]. - The point of difference between the two learned Members who heard the appeal is as follows :- Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of one day in the filing of the appeal before the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. 7. The case was fixed, in the first instance, for hearing on 17-4-1990. In response t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... circumstance, it could not be said that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) holding the appeal as time-barred was erroneous. Shri Arora also submitted that in view of the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. Cegat -1990 (45) E.L.T. 521, the present Bench cannot differ from the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. I would first deal with the second submission of Shri Arora. As already noted, the point on which the two Members differed is a specific one, namely, whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of one day in the filing of the appeal. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Third .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le, if the post office functions with reasonable efficiency, for a registered article handed in at Bhubaneswar to be delivered at New Delhi within 3 or 4 days. I do not think a citizen should be required to assume that a Government Department like the Post Office will not function with reasonable efficiency, and should be required as a matter of course to make allowance for inordinate delays on its part. 11. The observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag Another v. Mst. Katiji Others -1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) are also very apposite. The Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. The doctrine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates