9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above order should be preferred within three months from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that 'the date of order' is to receive a wider connotation so as to say that the appeal could be preferred from the date of the service of the order. But, there was no provision for condonation of delay earlier in contrast to such a provision introduced by the amendment in 1980. The petitioner sent the appeal as against the order of the third respondent to the second respondent, by post and it was received by the second respondent on 4th November 1978, obviously out of time. The second respondent by his order dated 29th December 1978, dismissed the appeal as time barred. The petitioner took up the matter by way of revision to the first re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abhram Parmar v. Union of India, 1978 E.L.T. (J.695) by pointing out that in that case the original authority intimated the party that if he was aggrieved by the original decision, he should prefer an appeal to the appellate authority c/o a Post Box within three months and in that context, it has opined that when the appeal was invited by post, the post office being the agent of the authorities, the appeal could be held to have been preferred within time from the date of posting. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel also draws my attention to a pronouncement of a single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1981 E.L.T. 27 (Calcutta), where the pronouncement of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the appeal could be filed, and when the appeal filed through post office reached late before the appellate authority, it cannot be held to have been filed within the time limit prescribed therefor. My attention has also been drawn to a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and others, 1983 E.L.T. 1296, S.C. where the Supreme Court held while dealing with the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, that where the appeal was sent by post, only the date of receipt must be taken to be the date when the appeal was filed. The question may be viewed from a different angle, if the authorities notified the party that the appeal would be entertained through post and in such a case, there is a room for an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y provision, which empowers an appellate authority to condone the delay in preferring the appeals. Hence, this contention also fails. 5. Thirdly, Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the second respondent in any event ought to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and in this regard, he complains of violation of principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are not a rigid code, inflexible in all contingencies without reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. When the appeal itself was time barred and was liable to be rejected on that ground, there was no question of affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. Such a view has also been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
