9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 129A(3) of the Customs Act, an appeal has to be filed within 3 months and as such the last date for filing of the appeal in the present matter is 22-12-1992. Thus there is a delay of 9 months and 13 days. Shri S.A. Jadhav, the learned advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the appellants has reiterated the contentions made in the condonation of delay application. He pleaded that the goods were imported in 1991 and thereafter the clearance was taken in June 1992 after 7 months and the appellants had difficulty financially and as such they could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. In support of his arguments, he cited a decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en busy in managing other affairs as a single person he could not instruct his counsel within the stipulated period and thus the delay occurred. Shri Jadhav had cited the following decisions:- (1)Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi and Others, reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 537. (2)Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). On the other hand, Shri Tyagi had cited the following decisions:- (1)Collector of Central Excise v. F.G.P. Limited, reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 712 (Tribunal) (2)CCE v. Hindustan Prestressed Control Structure (P) Ltd., reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 358 (Tribunal). We have gone through the application for condonation of delay. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment in the writ petition cannot be considered to be one in good faith. The subsequent proceedings are also not legal or valid. When the decision of the High Court in the Petition was on quashing the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities, the party could not proceed on the basis that the matter was restored to the lower authorities for fresh decision. We are therefore not satisfied that there is any merit in the ground urged by the appellants for getting over the bar of limitation. The appeals are liable to be dismissed as time barred. The appellants advocate has placed heavy reliance on the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
