2007 (2) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This application filed by the department (appellant) is for condonation of the delay of 64 days involved in the filing of their appeal. The application mentions the delay as 70 days, whereas learned SDR corrects it as 64 days. The impugned order was received by the Customs House on 7-6-2006 and the appeal was filed on 10-11-2006 with a delay of 64 days. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave petition of the department which was late by 51 days was dismissed as time-barred after noting that the delay between certain date and certain subsequent date was not cogently explained by the petitioner. 2. After considering the submissions and the case law, we are not inclined to allow these applications inasmuch as no valid reason, let alone to the satisfaction of the Bench, has been stat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er s explanation that the delay was due to interdepartmental correspondence. The present case of the department is worse and does not call for any such liberal approach as called for in the case of MST. Katiji and Others (supra). In any case, we would like to follow the ruling of the three-judge Bench of the Apex Court given in 1988 in preference to that given by the two-judge Bench of the court i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X