Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + AT Indian Laws - 1987 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1987 (4) TMI 245 - AT - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of first appeal as time-barred under Section 80(1) of the Gold (Control) Act.
2. Request to consider appeal on merits despite time-bar.
3. Discretion of statutory authorities to condone delay.
4. Service of adjudication order on partner/firm.
5. Request for requisition of records from Gold Control Administrator.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal filed by Mangalore Jewellery Works against the rejection of their first appeal as time-barred under Section 80(1) of the Gold (Control) Act. The appeal was transferred to the Tribunal and the appellants argued that the Tribunal should consider the appeal on merits rather than focusing on the time-bar issue.

2. The appellants requested the Tribunal to consider the appeal on merits despite being time-barred. They cited examples of other boards treating appeals as revision applications and relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the importance of considering matters on merits. However, the Collector argued that there was no discretion to condone the delay beyond the statutory time limit.

3. The issue of discretion of statutory authorities to condone delay was crucial in this case. The Gold Control Administrator rejected the appeal as time-barred, stating that he had no discretion to condone the delay beyond the specified period. The Collector argued that unless statutory authorities are vested with discretion, they cannot condone time limits.

4. Another point raised was the service of the adjudication order on the partner or firm. The appellants contended that the order was not served on the other partner or the firm, questioning the correctness of the Administrator's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the service on one partner was sufficient as the action was taken against the firm.

5. The appellants also requested the requisition of records from the Gold Control Administrator. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this request as the time-bar issue was not disputed, and the service of the order on one partner was deemed sufficient. The Tribunal upheld the Gold Control Administrator's decision to reject the appeal as time-barred, concluding that the appeal had no force and was rejected accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates