9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification - HELD THAT:- It is, no doubt, true that though the appeal is required to filed before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of issue of the Notification and said period of 90 days had expired before the writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court on 30 November, 2016, but the time taken for filing the writ petition has been adequately explained in paragraph 6 of the application. After the dismissal of the writ petition and after the certified copy of the order was ready only two days time was taken by the applicant to file the appeal. The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. The delay is, accordingly, condoned and the application is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Notification. 2. It transpires from the records of the appeal that the appellant had earlier filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court on August, 08 2016 to assail the aforesaid Notification. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent pointed out that the writ petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Learned Counsel for writ petitioner, therefore, sought permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The Court, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and granted the liberty that was sought for by the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cords of the case filed before the Designated Authority. In addition, the issues about confidentiality of numbers of the applicant to be reflected in the writ also took some time for the local counsel to understand who was not familiar with the proceedings relating to anti-dumping duty." 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has, therefore, submitted that as sufficient reasons have been stated for filing the writ petition only on 30 November, 2016, the application filed for condoning the delay should be allowed. 6. The said application has been opposed by Ms. Reena Khair, learned counsel appearing for the Domestic Industry as also by Shri Ameet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Designated Authority and Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
