9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e three appeals. Apart from that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeals holding that the three appeals filed by the party before him were barred by time. He held that the maximum period of six months within which the appeal can be filed, but in all the three appeals delay in filing the claim is beyond condonable limits. Section 128 of the Customs Act 1962, is as under :- "SECTION 128. Appeals to [Commissioner (Appeals)] - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a (Commissioner of Customs) may appeal to the [Commissioner (Appeals)] within three months from the date of the Communication to him of such decision or order: Provided that the [Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that in view of this position, there was no delay in filing the appeals and time consumed in the process is to be excluded applying the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. He also drew our attention to Section 14 of the Limitation Act which is as under- "The Limitation Act, 1963 14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceedings relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention, he referred to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of P. Sarathy v. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2023, wherein it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not speak of a `Civil Court' but speaks only of a 'court'. If is not necessary that the Court spoken of in Section 14 should be a 'Civil Court'. Any authority of Tribunal having the trappings of a Court would be a 'Court' within the meaning of this section. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pasupathi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 249 (S.C.), wherein it was held that the delay in filing the appeal could have been condoned by resort to the principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resort to principle underlying Section 14 of Limitation Act particularly when the Tribunal possesses power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Clause 5 to Section 129 A is as under : "SECTION 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal…………… (5) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections after the expiry of the relevant period referred to in sub-section (3) or sub-section (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 6. In view of the wordings of the Clause 5 of Section 129A, it is clear that no time is prescribed in condoning the delay if the Tribunal was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision or declare them unconstitutional. Since the statute itself has provided a limitation, the right has to be exercised within that period." Similar view was expressed by Andhra Pradesh Court in the case of Shanthi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 79 and the order in brief is as under : "Delay in filing appeal beyond 90 days not condonable in view of specific provision of Proviso to Section 35(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. We cannot say that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the appellate authority refusing to condone the delay and to entertain the appeal. In view of the specific provision contained in the proviso to Section 35(1) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
