9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the order, the paper was handed over by the applicants to their Advocate at Delhi. On the advise of the advocate, the applicants deposited fees of Rs. 200/- for filing the Revision Application before the Government of India on 23-7-1992. The Revision Application was filed on 10-8-1992 i.e. 4 days after expiry of time limit of 3 months for filing the Revision Application. The matter lingered thereafter in the office of the Government of India dealing with Revision Application. The Joint Secretary, Government of India concerned passed an order dated 27-8-1993 holding that the matter relates not to the short landing of the goods but to the short receipt of the goods at the time of delivery and, therefore, the Revision application does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of delay caused by pursuing their remedy in wrong forum. He, therefore, prays for allowing the application. 4. Opposing the contention, ld. SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that the Revision Application itself was filed late by 4 days. He further submits that the preamble in the impugned order in this case clearly indicated that the appeal against the said order lies before the Tribunal. Therefore, an action on account of the applicant to file a Revision application before the Government of India cannot be termed bonafidely. He also submits that even after receipt of the Government of India s order on 14-3-1993, 26 days delay taken by the applicants is on a higher side and it cannot be called that the applicants had been taking the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority was held to be correct are not available before us in the present case, we observe. 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We observe as rightly pointed out by the ld. Advocate, for the applicants that the applicants filed a Revision Application under a legal advice. That being so the fact that there was a guideline given in the preamble in the impugned order is not material because preamble by itself cannot be a substitute to the provisions of the Act as understood by the legal counsel. We, therefore, hold that the applicant was pursuing the remedy before a wrong forum bonafidely. Thereafter, we also observe that the applicant had filed this app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
