TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal the date of communication has been mentioned as 11-08-1982. Shri N.C. Jain, the Ld. Advocate, stated that the Addl. Collector had passed the impugned order on 09-08-1982 and was received by the appellants on 11-08-1982. In terms of provisions then applicable, before the coming into existence of the Tribunal where the order was passed by the Addl. Collector and appeal was to be filed to the Board within 3 months under the erstwhile Section 35. Shri Jain stated that the bona fidely the applicant had filed the appeal before the Board and which was received back by the applicant on 18-11-1982 with a covering letter No. 5229/82 dated 08-11-1982 and in the said letter a reference was given to the effect that in terms of the Removal of Diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal to the Board in terms of the provisions of erstwhile Section 35 of the C.E.S.A., 1944. This Tribunal came into existence on 11-10-1982. The impugned order was received by the applicant on 11-8-1982 and as such the last date for the filing of the appeal was 11-11-1982. Bona fidely, the appellants had filed an appeal to the C.B.E.C. well before the expiry of the limitation. The appellant received. back the appeal filed by them with a covering letter from the Board, dated 08-11-1982. the letter received from the Board is reproduced below: This is with reference to your appeal filed on 1-11-1982 with the Central Board of Excise and Customs against the order of the Addl. Collector C. Ex., Pune No. V(26) 15-III Adj/81/47, dated 9-8-1982. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to make the refund in pursuance of the order-in-appeal. For this purpose the appellants may approach the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Customs House at Bombay to issue speaking orders regarding assessment and classification to enable the appellant to prefer appeal if they feel aggrieved." A simple reading of the observations of the Collector (Appeals) order will show that the appellant was pursuing the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Bombay. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Nath Kar v. Gangadas and others reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 566 on page 568-69 had held as under : That leaves for consideration the question whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not preferring his application within a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
