9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed July 14, 1987 was not directly challenged by way of the writ proceedings. Indeed, it was the Appellate Tribunal’s order that was challenged and, by a side-wind, the original order of July 14, 1987 was sought to be questioned. Since the order dated July 14, 1987 was amenable to an appeal and the outcome in the appeal was amenable to a challenge before the Appellate Tribunal and the appellants he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. ORDER The Court : The respondents are not represented even at the second call. 2. The appeal is directed against an order dated April 7, 2016 passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. By filing the petition in the year 2004, the appellants herein, in effect, wanted to dislodge an order passed by the Customs authorities on July 14, 1987. It was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ite the appellants assertion that they sought an adjournment of the matter on July 13, 1987, the appellants apparently chose not to make any enquiry as to what happened in their matter till the year 2002. The Writ Court refused to extend its beneficial jurisdiction to the appellants on the ground of the conduct of the appellants, particularly, the delay in approaching the Court. The Writ Court re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the Appellate Tribunal) being found to be erroneous. Since neither order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal was erroneous and since such authorities took relevant considerations into account in dismissing the belated plea of the appellants, the Court of the first instance in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
