9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly the application is allowed and these two documents are taken on record. 2. The Stay Petition is filed by the applicant praying that the pre-deposit of the duty demanded in terms of the orders passed by the adjudicating authority be stayed during the pendency of the Appeal. 2A. In this case, after the adjudicating authority passed the order requiring the applicant to deposit the duty in question, an Appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). But without entering into the merits of the case, the Appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was 27 days delay. The appeal actually was received by the applicant on 30-4-1992. The last date of filing the Appeal was on 29-7-1992, but the Appeal was actually filed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also pointed out that the concerned person was under medical supervision due to illness and he was asked to take rest. He, therefore, stated that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. In support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions :- (1) 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 - Land Acquisition Officer v. Mst. Katiji (2) 1987 (32) E.L.T. 258 (SC) - Bhag Singh Ors. v. Major Daljit Singh Ors. 6. The learned SDR Shri Dutt Majumder contended that misplacement of papers by the appellants is no good ground to condone the delay. He also pointed out that the medical certificate as well as the affidavit was not produced before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). It was also pointed out that during the period for which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay of about 58 days. There was no such representation made by the appellants in that case that they could not file the appeal in time and they may be granted extension. But in this case, within eight days of the expiry date, the appellants representative, approached the learned Collector and appraised him of the fact that the files were misplaced due to shifting. It only goes to show that the appellants were keen in filing the appeal but the records were misplaced due to shifting. In the case relied on by the learned SDR, it is not clear whether the records were misplaced due to the shifting. Therefore, that case is not similar to the facts of this case. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 601 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a result of later Supreme Court decisions in (4) Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) and in (5) G. Ramegowada (1988-2 Supreme Court Cases 142), the apparent rigour of the observations in Ramlal (supra AIR 1962 SC 361) to the effect that delay may not be condoned even on proof of sufficient cause therefor, or that each day s delay is to be explained has stood abated, mollified and modified. 10. The above decision clearly goes to show that the apparent rigour of the observations in Ramlal s case (AIR 1962 SC 361) is modified. This case of Ramlal was relied on by the Tribunal in the decision reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 601. Therefore, that decision cannot help the respondents in this case. 11. So also, the learned SDR relied on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
