1986 (2) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t year 1984-85. Briefly stated the relevant facts for the purposes of the present case are that the applicant transported goods worth Rs. 30,814 from outside the State of U.P. to inside the State of U.P. without form XXXI. The consignee was Bharat Pump Compressor, Government of India undertaking, Naini, Allahabad. The goods were seized and ultimately released in favour of Bharat Pump Compres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essor, Government of India undertaking, which were subsequently released in their favour without depositing any security the applicant was labouring under the impression that since the goods had already been released to the consignee the question of imposition of penalty was not called for and as soon as the orders were passed it informed the consignee and was under the impression that the appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is also settled that while disposing of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay the authorities are also supposed to give reasons for not accepting the explanation offered by the applicant for condonation of delay. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that it has not given any cogent reasons as to why the explanation offered by the applicant for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X