TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the order so passed an application was moved by the Department for condonation of delay. The petitioner firm, however, opposed the application. This led to a difference of opinion on the question as to whether delay could be condoned or not. On account of that difference of opinion the following question was referred by the Appellate Tribunal to the President in terms of the Proviso to Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act read with Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act : "Is the extension of time sought for the Principal Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi to be granted or not? " Aggrieved by the said order of reference and so also by the order dated 3rd May, 1988 by a Member of the Tribunal namely, Shri V.T. Raghavachar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31st August, 1995 may be perused. The relevant portion of the order, while referring to the order of DB-I said : "Since the competent authority in those days was President, this authority was mentioned by designation, but as the law has since changed and the President should either hear himself or nominate a third Member to resolve the difference of opinion, therefore, the matter could be heard by a Member or Bench nominated for the purpose." The petitioner firm finding the order unpalatable, once again approached the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of by another Division Bench by its order dated 12th January, 1996. It appears that by 12th January, 1996 a retired Chief Justice has already taken over as the President of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he point in searching for the "logic" for insistence by the party for obeyance of that order? 3. Mercifully, the President did decide to hear the matter. While condoning the delay by his order dated 22nd November, 1996 the President still avoided to answer all the questions raised. His order of 15th March, 1996 read along with the order of 22nd November, 1996 and his refusal to deal with all the questions raised despite the order of D.B. I, dated 23rd September, 1991 directing him to decide them, makes an unfortunate reading, to say the least. While saying so, I have particularly in my mind paragraph 8 of the order of the President dated 22nd December, 1996. The point in issue referred to in that paragraph was specifically raised in the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
