2006 (9) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ge, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. This is a miscellaneous application filed by Revenue for rectifying the defect in the appeal filed by it, vide Appeal No. C/179/06 in respect of M/s. M.B. Electronics and others. 2. It is the contention of the Revenue that in this case the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Car .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Chief Commissioners. 3. The ld. Advocate for the Respondents submits that the application cannot be admitted, at this stage, as the defect, sought to be removed, is not curable and, if removed, the appeal should be considered to have been filed, in the proper form, on the date of filing such an application i.e. on 8-8-06, and, in that case, the appeal would be time-barred, as the order issued b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arlier. Hence the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. Consequently, the other two miscellaneous applications filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the co-noticees, on the ground that the main appeal itself was filed within time, are also dismissed, as not maintainable. 7. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed as barred by limitation. (Pronounced in Cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X