|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 378 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 337
The appeal involved the classification of Teflon hoses with S.S. braid. The appellants claimed Chapter 39.17, while the Revenue argued for Heading 83.07. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Chapter 39.17, granting relief to the appellants.
-
2001 (6) TMI 336
The case involved the interpretation of the term "chamfering" in relation to manufacturing cast copper articles. The department argued that chamfering made the articles unfit for a specific benefit, but the Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, equating chamfering with grinding. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that chamfering did not automatically amount to bevelling, and the absence of a specific machine for bevelling supported the assessee's position. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 335
Issues:
1. Denial of natural justice due to failure to provide copies of documents relied upon.
2. Allegations of under-valuation, duplicate sales, and duty evasion against companies and their directors.
3. Imposition of duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods by the Commissioner.
4. Legal arguments regarding principles of natural justice and obligation to supply documents.
5. Interpretation of previous court judgments on the obligation to provide copies of documents.
6. Remand of the case for proper consideration and adherence to natural justice principles.
Issue 1: Denial of natural justice due to failure to provide copies of documents relied upon:
The judgment pertains to 19 appeals filed by two private limited companies and their directors regarding duty evasion allegations. The Commissioner passed ex parte orders due to the non-appearance of the assessees during the personal hearing. The assessees claimed that they were not provided with all the relevant documents despite requests. The Tribunal found that failure to provide necessary documents denied the assessees the opportunity to defend themselves adequately, constituting a violation of natural justice principles.
Issue 2: Allegations of under-valuation, duplicate sales, and duty evasion against companies and their directors:
The companies were accused of under-valuation, duplicate sales, and evasion of duty. Statements from employees and buyers confirmed the irregularities. The Commissioner confirmed substantial duties and penalties on the companies, directors, and staff members. Similar investigations and penalties were imposed on the directors and staff of another company involved in parallel proceedings.
Issue 3: Imposition of duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods by the Commissioner:
The Commissioner confirmed duties, imposed penalties, and confiscated goods in both cases due to the alleged irregularities. The penalties were imposed on the companies, directors, and staff members involved in the operations. The judgments highlighted the significant financial implications of the confirmed duties and penalties, amounting to substantial sums.
Issue 4: Legal arguments regarding principles of natural justice and obligation to supply documents:
Legal arguments centered on the obligation of the department to supply copies of documents relied upon to the assessees. The assessees contended that the failure to provide these documents hindered their ability to respond effectively to the allegations. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing assessees with all relevant documents to ensure a fair and transparent adjudication process.
Issue 5: Interpretation of previous court judgments on the obligation to provide copies of documents:
The legal representatives referenced past court judgments to support their arguments regarding the obligation to supply copies of documents. The Tribunal analyzed these judgments to determine the extent of information disclosure required for a fair hearing. The court emphasized the need for the department to provide all relevant documents to the assessees to enable them to present their case effectively.
Issue 6: Remand of the case for proper consideration and adherence to natural justice principles:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals on grounds of denial of natural justice and remanded the case for further proceedings. It imposed time restrictions on both parties to expedite the process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in resolving the substantial financial and legal issues involved in the case.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal arguments, findings, and implications of the decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 334
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai disposed of an application for waiver of pre-deposit, directing the applicants to pre-deposit the duty confirmed in the impugned proceedings. Despite being given more time, the applicants continued to delay the process, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 333
Issues Involved:
Whether aluminium structure is exigible to excise duty under sub-heading 7610.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Exigibility of Aluminium Structure to Excise Duty
The appeal raised the question of whether the aluminium structure is subject to excise duty under a specific sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Appellant argued that the fabrication of the aluminium structure created a distinct, marketable commodity that attracted excise duty. They relied on previous judgments to support their stance. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that no new commodity emerged from the fabrication process, and therefore, no excise duty should be levied. They cited relevant case law to support their argument. The Tribunal examined the submissions and referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal ultimately held that as no new product with a distinct name, use, or character was created through the fabrication process, no excise duty was applicable. They found that the aluminium sheets, even after drilling and assembly, did not transform into a new marketable commodity. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant case law references, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 332
The appeal was filed late, but the appellants provided valid reasons for the delay. The Tribunal found that the appellants should have been granted a hearing to explain the delay. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The appeal was allowed for de novo consideration.
-
2001 (6) TMI 331
Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of goods' origin
2. Recovery of differential duty
3. Imposition of penalties
4. Provisional assessment and issuance of show cause notice
5. Non-levy of penalties by the Commissioner
Analysis:
1. The case involved the mis-declaration of goods' origin by M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd., who imported Polyester Chips declaring them as Yugoslavian but were later found to be of Italian origin. The Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice seeking recovery of differential duty and penalties on various parties involved. The Commissioner concluded that M/s. Orkay Silk Mills Ltd. and their directors were not involved in the mis-declaration, refraining from imposing penalties on them. The indenting agent and the carrier of the goods were also not penalized, except for the recovery of differential duty.
2. The Central Board of Excise & Customs reviewed the order and argued that there was sufficient evidence implicating the concerned parties in creating the fraud to take advantage of concessional duty rates for goods of Yugoslavian origin. The issue of recovery of differential duty was confirmed, and a determination was sought regarding the alleged involvement of the noticees in the fraud.
3. The Tribunal addressed the procedural aspect of the case, questioning the validity of the show cause notice issued during provisional assessments. Citing previous judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, it was established that show cause notices issued during provisional assessments were not valid. The Tribunal found that in the present cases, the issuance of the show cause notice was unwarranted due to the provisional nature of the assessments, leading to the dismissal of the appeals challenging the non-levy of penalties by the Commissioner.
4. Ultimately, as the non-levy of penalties was the sole ground of appeal, and considering the legal precedents regarding provisional assessments and show cause notices, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 329
Issues:
Application for settlement of case pertaining to show cause notices regarding capacity determination and duty liability.
Analysis:
The applicant, a manufacturer of MS Ingots, filed a declaration in 1997 regarding furnace capacity. The Revenue later found the actual capacity to be higher than declared. The Revenue sought assistance from different Chartered Engineers to determine the capacity, leading to discrepancies in findings. The applicant challenged the findings of one set of engineers. The applicant offered to settle by accepting a revised duty liability amount. The applicant argued that with the withdrawal of a levy scheme, no duty liability could be imposed. The applicant affirmed full disclosure of duty liability. The Revenue officials supported the Commissioner's order but acknowledged that adjudication was pending when the application was filed.
The Settlement Commission considered the case's status at the time of application and subsequent adjudication. The Commission noted that the case was not pending in court at the time of application. Various writ petitions were filed and disposed of by the High Court, directing finalization of proceedings. The Commission observed complexities in issues such as capacity determination and justification for fixing capacity. Despite the complexities, the Commission found the conditions for proceeding under Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were met. The Commission allowed the application to proceed, directing the applicant to pay the additional duty amount accepted within 30 days.
In conclusion, the Settlement Commission allowed the application to proceed, acquiring exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Commission emphasized the need for timely payment of the additional duty amount. The decision was based on satisfying the conditions under the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the complexities involved in the case.
-
2001 (6) TMI 328
Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sugar factory, challenged the price fixation for levy sugar before the High Court, which was later directed to be refixed by the Supreme Court. The appellant claimed a refund of excess duty paid due to the price difference. The Department rejected the refund claim citing time-bar and unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the duty payment was under protest and provisional assessment due to the pending litigation, thus not subject to the limitation provisions of Section 11B(1).
2. The Advocate argued that the payment under protest exempts the claim from the limitation period, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. The Departmental authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the rejection based on unjust enrichment and time-bar. The JDR emphasized that the appellant admitted passing on the duty incidence to the government bodies, invoking Section 11B(2) and the limitation period starting from the refixed price notification date.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Section 11B to the appellant's case, considering the payment under protest due to the High Court's interim order. Relying on Mafatlal Industries, the Tribunal concluded that the limitation provisions did not apply to the appellant's refund claim. The lower appellate authority's view on the limitation period was deemed unreasonable, as the payment under protest should exempt the claim from any time limitation under Section 11B.
4. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument to treat the duty payment as provisional assessment under Rule 9B(1) to avoid unjust enrichment. The appellant's selective reliance on different provisions was deemed inconsistent. The Tribunal upheld the Department's rejection based on unjust enrichment, as the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers of levy sugar. Consequently, the claim for cash refund was denied on the grounds of unjust enrichment.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the refund claim but directed the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, setting aside the decisions of the lower authorities. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's successful argument regarding the payment under protest and the inapplicability of the limitation provisions, despite rejecting the unjust enrichment defense put forth by the Department.
-
2001 (6) TMI 315
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dismissed the application for stay of operation of the order revoking the appellant's license under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The Tribunal considered the issue of separate licensing at different Customs stations and concluded that there was no sufficient ground for a stay. The application was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2001 (6) TMI 314
Issues Involved:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Act, determination of manufacturer, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
Classification of Goods:
The case involved the classification of goods manufactured by the appellant as 'Sewing Thread' or 'Embroidery Thread' under Central Excise Act. The Commissioner classified the goods under Heading 5401.20, which was contested by the appellant as incorrect due to the absence of that heading during the relevant period. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's classification to be incorrect as the notice proposed classification under Tariff sub-heading 5404.00, not 5401.20. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that it was a mistake, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner's classification decision for de novo adjudication.
Determination of Manufacturer:
Another issue was determining the manufacturer of the goods during a specific period. The appellant contended that they were not the manufacturer but merely checked the goods for quality after receiving them from job workers and repacking them. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including the Ujaggar Prints case, to establish that the processor of goods is considered the manufacturer. It highlighted the need for the Commissioner to reassess who the manufacturer was in this case, emphasizing the lack of findings on this crucial aspect in the initial decision.
Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC:
Regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, the Tribunal noted the settled legal position that such penalties cannot be imposed for periods preceding the enactment of that section. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal on this issue. As the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back for further adjudication, it kept all issues open, including the determination of the manufacturer. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeals for fresh adjudication based on the issues discussed.
This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key legal issues involved in the case, focusing on the classification of goods, determination of the manufacturer, and the imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the initial order and allow for a fresh adjudication underscores the complexity and significance of these legal issues in the context of excise law and manufacturing processes.
-
2001 (6) TMI 285
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-prosecution.
Analysis:
The case involved an application for the restoration of an appeal filed by M/s. B.M. Auto India, which was dismissed by the Tribunal for non-prosecution. The appellant, represented by Shri Vivek Kohli, sought restoration on the grounds that their consultant, Shri D.N. Kohli, had passed away, leading to inadvertent non-representation before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the dismissal as they had left Delhi, and the factory was closed. The appellant contended that the appeal's dismissal was unintentional and requested restoration for a merit-based disposal, emphasizing the grave repercussions if the appeal remained dismissed.
The respondent, represented by Shri M.P. Singh, opposed the restoration, highlighting that both partners had left Delhi before the appeal was filed in 1990. The respondent argued that despite the partners' absence and factory closure, the appellant used the factory address for communication. It was pointed out that the appellant failed to update the Tribunal with a new address for communication. The respondent also emphasized the delay in filing the restoration application, citing the need for diligence and reasonable time for seeking relief, as established in legal precedents.
Upon considering both parties' submissions, the Tribunal concurred with the respondent's arguments. It was noted that the appellant's choice to use the closed factory address for communication undermined their claim of not receiving the hearing notice. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant lacked diligence by not updating their address with the Tribunal and filing the restoration application after a significant delay of over three years from the original dismissal. Referring to legal principles, including the need for timely action even in the absence of a prescribed limitation period, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish grounds for recalling the earlier dismissal order. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for restoration of the appeal, thereby upholding the original dismissal decision.
-
2001 (6) TMI 284
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi stayed the recovery of excise duty and penalty imposed on M/s. S.R. Foils Ltd. for repacking aluminum foils. The Tribunal held that aluminum home foil is not excisable, but chapati wrap involves manufacturing and needs reclassification. The matter was remanded for fresh decision based on earlier orders.
-
2001 (6) TMI 283
Issues:
Whether penalty is imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act when goods have been confiscated under Section 120 of the Customs Act.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act
The case involved appeals arising from a common order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, focusing on the imposition of penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellants were accused of smuggling watch parts and wrist watches, leading to the confiscation of goods under Section 120 of the Customs Act. The advocate for the appellants argued that penalties under Section 112 could only be imposed when goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The advocate cited a precedent where it was held that misdirected penalties under Section 112 were not justified when proceedings were covered by a different section. Additionally, the advocate contended that penalties had already been imposed for the alleged smuggling offense by the Commissioner of Customs, Meerut, covering all seized and cleared goods. The argument emphasized that imposing penalties twice for the same offense would amount to double jeopardy.
Issue 2: Counterarguments and Legal Standpoint
In response, the learned DR argued that the appellants had not raised the plea regarding penalty imposition under Section 112 before the Adjudicating authority, questioning the timing of raising new arguments before the Appellate Tribunal. The DR invoked Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, asserting that penalties under Section 112 were justifiable due to the smuggling of watch parts that led to the manufacturing of wrist watches. The DR supported the Commissioner's findings and highlighted the Commissioner's authority to invoke penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act, referencing legal precedents to justify the imposition of penalties.
Judgment and Resolution
After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal ruled that penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act were not applicable in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties could only be imposed when goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111, which was not the scenario with the wrist watches manufactured from smuggled parts. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on all appellants under Section 112. Regarding the argument on penalties under Section 117, the Tribunal decided not to delve into that issue, as the appellants had already been penalized for smuggling watch parts by the Commissioner of Customs, Meerut. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellants, considering it unjust to penalize them separately for goods manufactured from the smuggled watch parts.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's final decision on the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act.
-
2001 (6) TMI 282
Issues:
1. Whether the assembly and erection of food processing units at the customer's site amounts to manufacture under Central Excise Act?
2. Whether the emerged food processing line is marketable goods and eligible for excise duty?
3. Jurisdictional aspects related to the assembly of the food processing machinery.
Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the assembly and erection of food processing units at the customer's site do not constitute manufacturing as it does not create a new marketable product. They relied on legal precedents emphasizing the marketability test for dutiability. The Supreme Court's decision in Triveni Engineering case was cited to support the argument that the emergence of a processing line does not result in a new product eligible for excise duty.
2. The respondent contended that the assembly process results in the creation of a distinct, excisable product. They referred to the Sirpur Paper Mills case to support their position. However, the tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that dismantling the food processing line would reveal separate machines and equipment, not a single marketable product. The judgment in Triveni Engineering case was deemed applicable, highlighting the distinction between the final product and its components.
3. The tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspect of the assembly process and concluded that the food processing line is not eligible for excise duty. The decision was based on the immovability of the processing line and its inability to be moved to another location in the same condition. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, while the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected as it became irrelevant after the primary issue was resolved.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the tribunal's reasoning in arriving at the decision regarding the assembly and marketability of the food processing line under the Central Excise Act.
-
2001 (6) TMI 281
Issues:
Stay applications for waiver of penalties imposed under the Customs Act due to alleged violations in exporting goods.
Analysis:
The appellants filed three stay applications seeking waiver of penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The case originated from the export of old garments disguised as readymade garments to claim excess duty drawback. Central Excise Preventive Officers investigated and found discrepancies in the goods exported by the appellants. The containers provided to them contained old, used, and torn clothes instead of the declared items. Additionally, inflated values were assigned to items like watches to benefit from duty drawback. The Commissioner of Customs imposed penalties and ordered confiscation based on violations of various laws. The appellants argued financial hardship and innocence, claiming the seizure was illegal and values were correct. However, the Commissioner's order was upheld as the appellants attempted to export misrepresented goods for financial gain, risking the country's reputation. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for complete penalty waiver due to the appellants' conduct and violations.
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' financial hardship claims but directed partial pre-deposits to continue their appeals. Appellant No. 1 was directed to deposit Rs. 1 crore out of Rs. 5 crores, Appellant No. 2 to deposit Rs. 75 lakhs out of Rs. 1.75 crores, and Appellant No. 3 to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs out of Rs. 1.25 crores within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in dismissal of their appeals under Section 129-E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal balanced the interests of revenue with the appellants' circumstances by allowing partial waivers upon specified deposits, ensuring compliance with the legal process.
-
2001 (6) TMI 280
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of transaction value for Customs duty assessment by M/s. Vaibhav Textiles.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Acceptance of Transaction Value
In the appeal filed by M/s. Vaibhav Textiles, the primary issue was whether the transaction value declared by them should be accepted for the assessment of Customs duty. The appellants had imported Polyester Fabrics and declared an assessable value of Rs. 10,97,152.60 based on an invoice issued by M/s. Capital World Trading Ltd. Taiwan. However, the Commissioner, Customs enhanced the value based on imports by M/s. Naveen Enterprises and subsequently confiscated the goods with a redemption option and imposed penalties. The appellants argued that the goods imported by M/s. SBS Impex and M/s. Naveen Enterprises were different from theirs in terms of characteristics, quality, and processing. They emphasized that the goods should be similar for value comparison, including physical characteristics, quality, reputation, country of origin, and timing of import. The fabric imported by Naveen Enterprises differed in GSM, texture, and processing, making it unsuitable for comparison. The Commissioner's findings were contested, stating that the appellants failed to demonstrate how strip variety or anti-pilling process affected the material difference. However, Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules mandates accepting transaction value, and Rule 6 allows determining value based on similar goods with like characteristics and components. The Tribunal concluded that the goods imported by Naveen Enterprises were not similar to those of the appellants, as evidenced by differences in GSM and processing. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical aspects of the case, including the arguments presented by both parties, the relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to its decision to accept the transaction value declared by M/s. Vaibhav Textiles for Customs duty assessment.
-
2001 (6) TMI 279
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the rectification of mistake application filed by an unauthorized counsel as he was not authorized by the appellants. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants and dismissed the application. The High Court had stayed the operation of the Tribunal's order.
-
2001 (6) TMI 278
The appellate tribunal in New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the off-loading and filling of Hydrogen Peroxide and Acetic Acid, stating it did not amount to manufacturing as per Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The decision was based on a previous case involving Ammonia gas, where a similar activity was deemed not to be manufacturing. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the stay petitions of the appellants unconditionally.
-
2001 (6) TMI 277
Issues: Classification of Hydraulic Gear Pump under Central Excise Tariff Act
Issue 1: Classification of Hydraulic Gear Pump
The appeal involved the classification of Hydraulic Gear Pump manufactured by the appellant under Heading 8413.80 as claimed by them or under Heading 87.08 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as decided by the Commissioner in the impugned Order.
Analysis:
The appellant argued that the Hydraulic Gear Pump belongs to the positive displacement category of pumps, developing pressure in the hydraulic system. They contended that the product should be classified under Heading 8413.10, which was later changed to 8413.80 by the department. The appellant relied on Note 2 to Section XVII of the Tariff and Explanatory Notes of HSN to support their classification under Heading 8413.80, emphasizing the specificity of the description. They also cited a previous case to strengthen their argument based on Interpretative Rules. The appellant distinguished previous decisions cited by the Commissioner, stating they were not applicable to the present case.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section Notes and Circulars
The discussion revolved around the interpretation of Section Notes and Circulars provided by the Board to determine the classification of the Hydraulic Gear Pump. The appellant emphasized the provisions of Note 2 and 3 to Section XVII, excluding certain articles from being classified as parts and accessories under Chapter 87 of the Tariff. The appellant argued that the product should not be classified under Heading 87.08 based on these provisions.
Analysis:
The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that the Hydraulic Gear Pump was specifically designed for use in tractors, making it suitable for classification under Heading 87.08. The D.R. referred to Circulars issued by the Board and previous court decisions to support this classification based on the principle of 'parts suitable for use solely or principally.' The D.R. cited a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision to strengthen the argument for classifying the product under Heading 87.08.
Final Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Note 2 and 3 to Section XVII, along with the Explanatory Notes of HSN. The Tribunal concluded that the Hydraulic Gear Pump should be classified under Heading 8413.80 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and not under Heading 87.08. The Tribunal found no substance in the argument that the product, being suitable for use with tractors, should fall under Heading 87.08. The Tribunal distinguished previous court decisions cited by both parties and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant without delving into the question of the invocable time limit.
............
|
9911796707
