9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner challenges the validity of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein, in Order No. 1173, dated 23-5-1996 as also the Order No. 173/1991, dated 25-11-1991 of the 1st Respondent as being illegal and arbitrary. 2.To appreciate the contentions urged before us, it would be necessary to note the relevant facts giving rise to filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n amount of Rs. 18,484.90 Ps by order dated 31-8-1990. The Petitioner challenged the validity of the order of the 1st Respondent before the 2nd Respondent. On 13-2-1991, the second Respondent remanded the matter to the 1st Respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. After remand, the hearing of the case was fixed by the 1st Respondent on 1-11-1991. But, on 31-10-1991, the petitioner file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the correctness of that order of the 2nd Respondent and the order of the 1st Respondent, dated 25-11-1991 referred to above, that is ……… to this writ petition. 3.Mr. S. Ravindranath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that under the Rules, no time limit is fixed for representation of the appeal, therefore, it cannot be said that there was delay in representation and therefore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at purpose, would be a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, inter alia, having regard to the nature of the defects to be rectified, the difficulty faced by the petitioner in rectifying the defects. In the instant case, the defect to be rectified was only verification by the petitioner. That would hardly take any time to comply with the defect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal has eventually been represented by the petitioner himself. Nothing was brought on record to show that the Consultant was so unwell as to make the appeal papers available to the petitioner. No medical certificate or other documents were produced before the Tribunal. Having regard to these circumstances, in our view, the Tribunal was right in declining to condone the delay. We, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
