9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remittances, i.e., (1) DEM 73,044.20, equivalent to Rs. 16,24,503, (2) DM 52,724.35, equivalent to Rs. 11,72,590, from Honkong and Shanghai Bank, for import of the goods failed to make such import and file proof thereof. This appeal is filed along with an application for condonation of delay admitting 13 days delay in filing the appeal. 3. However, on the face of the records it is quite clear that this appeal is filed on 23-4-2007 against the adjudication order passed on 7-7-2005 which was dispatched to the appellant on this very address on 9-8-2005 as per the entry made on the first page of the impugned order. When the question about exact date of receipt of the adjudication order is asked, the Ld. Counsel Shri V.S. Vasundaran repeated wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays. The limitation period of 45 days as provided in the First Proviso of sub-section (2) of section 52 is binding on this Tribunal. The Legislature has provided specifically outer limit of 90 days, hence, this Tribunal cannot go beyond legislative mandate of maximum period of 90 days. Moreover, by applying section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, this Tribunal cannot take resort to the provisions of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of more than 45 days. In this regard, the provision of section 52(2) so far as relevant are reproduced below: 52 Appeal to Appellate Board. (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an Appellate Board. . . . (2) Any person aggrieved by such order may, on payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made to a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Western Builders 2006 (6) Scale 5741 where similar fact situation of prescription of limitation of 3 months plus 30 days under Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 had arisen within which period arbitral award can be challenged. In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows : It is only by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act, its operation is excluded to that extent of the area which is covered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Our attention was also invited to the various decisions of this Court interpreting sub-section (2) of section 29 of Limitation Act with reference to other Acts like the Representation of Peoples Act or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Limitation Act cannot operate on the facts and circumstances of this appeal to exclude delayed period. 8. The reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji 1987 (28) ELT 185 is misplaced and wrong. In this judicial dicta, Hon'ble Supreme Court has not said that limitation law should be made redundant but has only exhorted the Courts/Tribunals to take a liberal view while condoning delay. In the present appeals, howsoever the liberal approach may be taken but does not make the limitation law totally non-existent. The Apex Court has not observed that indolent person with attitude of 'do not care' should be helped and every appeal with excessive delay should be entertained despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
