9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : T.P. Nambiar, Member (J)]. This is an application filed by the applicant praying that the delay in filing the Appeal No. C-433/89 may be condoned. It is stated that the applicant received the impugned Order No. 47/88 - Prev. dated 1-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Prev.), West Bengal, Calcutta on 1-12-1988. The matter related to the baggage items cleared by the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri V. Prahladka stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, the delay may be condoned. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decision :- 1991 (52) E.L.T. 156 in the case of Lee Murhead India Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. In that particular case, a Revision Application was filed before the Government of India on 12-6-1982. Since the Revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite of the clear direction given in the format of the impugned order that the appeal was to be presented before the Tribunal. When such a direction was given to the applicant, there was no reason for the applicant to file the Revision Petition before the Government of India. This fact was not explained by the applicant. 3. Reliance was placed on another decision reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms (Appeals) v. Ruby Products. That case also does not apply to the facts of this case. In that case, the Tribunal had clearly stated that the ratio of Katiji s case had to be applied to the facts of each case. It was also held that for condoning any delay in filing the appeal a cause must be shown which should be sufficient. In this case, there is no such cause which was in existence for cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
