9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners. The petitioners are a Company registered under the Companies Act and are one of the leading manufacturers of automotive tyres and tubes in India. The petitioners import vinyl pyridine Latex (V.P. Latex) as it is one of the essential ingredients in the course of manufacture of automotive tyres. The petitioners imported from time to time V.P. Latex and the Customs authorities levied duty under Item 82(3) of the Import Customs Tariff. The petitioners claimed that the item imported was liable to be assessed under Item 39 of the Tariff and, therefore, paid the duty as demanded by the Customs authorities under protest. The petitioners filed several refund applications claiming that the Customs authorities have recovered excess duty by class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were dismissed by the appellate authority on December 2, 1972 by separate orders. The petitioners preferred two revision applications before the Government of India on June 19, 1973 and both revision applications were lodged 15 days beyond the statutory period of limitation. The revision applications came to be dismissed by a consolidated order on the ground that they were filed beyond period of limitation. The order rejecting the revision applications on the ground of limitation is under challenge, in this petition. 5. Shri Taraporewala, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submitted that the revisional authority was clearly in error in rejecting the applications on the ground of limitation when other seven revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in approaching this Court and the petition should fail only on that count. I am not inclined to accept the submission because it would not be appropriate to defeat the just claim of the petitioners on the technical ground of delay. Shri Chinai then submits that though admittedly the revisional applications were filed beyond period of limitation, the petitioners have not given any reason for condonation of delay in their revisional petitions. It is true that revisional applications do not set out any grounds for condonation of delay but Shri Taraporewala counters by submitting that the revisional authorities never called upon the petitioners to explain the delay and the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to explain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
