9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The particulars of the revision applications are as under : Appeal No. Order No. & date Date of service of order Date of filing of R.A. Date of payment of R.A. fee. CD(T)CAL-78/81 2100/80 dt. 14th Nov. '80 2nd April '81 30-12-81 14th Jan. '82 CD(T)CAL-79/81 194/81 dt. 31st Jan. '81 6th April '81 30-12-81 -do- CD(T)CAL-80/81 835/81 dt. 27-4-81 11th June '81 -do- -do- CD(T)CAL-81/81 2313/80 dt. 29-12-80 2nd April '81 -do- -do- All the four aforementioned revision applications are being disposed as appeal by a consolidated order 2. Shri P. Chatterjee, Officer-in-Charge of the appellant Company has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has filed a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of condonation of delay. 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the records of the case, I would like to observe that the appellant has not taken the slightest care even in complying with the requirements of the Registry. Even for the condonation of delay the conduct of the applicant is very important. The question has to be approached from the point of view of the applicant's conduct. It was so observed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kayambu v. Court of Wards reported in AIR 1942 Madras 170 (extract taken from the Limitation Act by B.B. Mitra, page 58, XVIII Edn.) (not cited by the parties). There is delay in the filing of the aforesaid revision applications. As per provisions of sub-section (2) of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." A simple perusal of the appellant's prayer for condonation of delay in these four appeals, clearly shows that the only ground taken by the appellant is that of misplacing of papers and the appellant has not filed any separate applications for condonation of delay duly supported with Affidavits explaining the circumstances which resulted in the delay in filing of revision applications (now appeals). It is a settled law that where the appellant acts without due care and attention there is no sufficient cause for extension of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when any negligence or in-action or want of bond fide is imputable to a party. Similar is the position in the case of a corporate body which is not entitled to a greater indulgence under Section 5 of the Limitation Act than a private individual. It was held in the case of District Board, Sargoda v. Shamasdin reported in 123 Indian Cases 1983 (extract taken from page 54 of the Limitation Act by B.B. Mitra, XVIII Edition) (not cited by the parties). 5. After the aforesaid discussions and in view of the legal position, I do not feel it to be a fit case where this court should exercise its discretion in condoning the delay in filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
