9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was the proper forum for entertaining the Revision. This Revision petition was filed in time. Subsequently however on receipt of advice from Senior Technical Officer in the office of CBEC, they have filed it before Tribunal. He prays that since it was a case only for seeking relief before a wrong forum under a genuine belief the period spent in pursuing remedy should be allowed to be excluded and delay of 19 days be condoned. In support of his contention that in such cases where appeals were filed in wrong forum, condonation is allowed, he cited the cases of : Hindustan Dewidat Tools Ltd. v. UOI - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 1 (Del.) United Metal Crafts v. C.C.E. - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 557 (Tribunal) Bhag Singh and Others v. Major Daljit Singh - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions made by both the sides. Admitted facts are that order-in-appeal was received by the appellant Revenue on 27-5-1994. The appeal has been received in the Registry on 15th September 1994. Therefore, there is a delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. In order to appreciate whether the matter was pursued with diligence required or not sequence of events indicated by the appellant Revenue in the application of condonation of delay as set out below :- 27-5-1994 to 22-8-1994 Order-In-Appeal received on 27-5-1994 by the Collector and a revision application filed before the Govt. of India in time. 26-8-1994 Telex recd. from S.T.O. (Revision Applications), New Delhi whereunder certain clarifications have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 27-8-1994 to 29-8-1994 are indicated as non-working days as reasons for not taking immediate action after receipt of this telex. Period from 31-8-1994 to 5-9-1994 is shown as to have been spent in routing file to Asstt. Collector. 3-9-1994 to 4-9-1994 are shown as non-working days. Period from 5-9-1994 to 9-9-1994 is again indicated as spent in discussions and movement of files. Nearly six days were thereafter taken in only preparing an appeal. 7. The sequence of events as narrated by Collector himself would clearly indicate that the appellants did not pursue the appellate remedies with urgency and diligency that it demanded from the point of time when the period of limitation had already expired. The limitation period expired on 27- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was rejected by this Tribunal as in case of M.P. Electricity Board v. CCE, Indore [1994 (73) E.L.T. 812 (Tribunal)]. 10. The case of Bhag Singh and Others v. Major Daljit Singh and Others (supra) cited by ld. DR is distinguishable as in that case as held by Hon ble Supreme Court the appellants were poor agriculturist, not expected to have knowledge of legal steps to be taken. That analogy therefore, cannot be extended to appellant Revenue dealing with Customs Excise laws everyday. 10.1 In case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) the appellants had filed the revision petition in the Tribunal at Delhi and under Section 31 of the Customs Act. Though the Section was no more in operation due to creation of Tribunal on 11-10-1982 (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
