1991 (3) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay by CEGAT. The appeal was filed against the order dated August 9, 1989, passed by the Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad. The order was received by the petitioner on August 13, 1989. The appeal should have been filed on or before November 13, 1989. However, the appeal was posted on December 25, 1989 and it was received by the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h should be borne in mind by the Court while interpreting the phrase "sufficient cause". The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are as under : "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so". If the aforesaid principles are applied, in our view, the delay ought to have been condoned. 3. In the result, the order Annexure 'B' dated June 26, 1990, passed by the CEGAT, Bombay, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X