TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of Section 131 B of the Customs Act and have to be treated as appeal before the Tribunal. Since both these appeals were filed on behalf of the same appellant and have been handled by the same advocate, they were clubbed together for hearing and disposal at the request of the advocate. 2. The appeal No. 300/80 is against the Board s Order No. 391-92 of 1979 under F.No. 191/253/76/CXXVA/A.U.(B), dated 3.12.1979 under F.No. 191/62/79A.U.(B) which the Board rejected two appeals, dated May 1976 and dated 1-5-79 preferred by Smt. V.P. Kunhi Ayichu as time barred under Section 128 of the Customs Act. These two appeals were filed against the same Order No. 32/1974/Collr., dated 20.5.1974 of the Collector of Customs Ahmedabad imposing a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese cases, the appellants filed the Revision petitions to the Government which have been transferred to the Tribunal and have to be treated as appeals to the Tribunal. Advocate Shri Karmali on behalf of the appellants contended that in respect of appeals to the Board under old Section 128 of the C.A. it was urged that if the Board treated the appeals under Section 128 as barred by limitation, they may be treated as applications for revision of the Collectors orders in terms of old Section 130(1) of the C.A. Shri Karmali stated that the same argument had been inter alia repeated in the respective revision applications to the Government. 5. In order to verify the contention of the learned advocate, we asked the learned SDR to obtain the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li further explained that there were no provisions in the Customs Act which would require the appeal of a deceased person to abate after his demise. From this point of view, he contrasted the provisions of Section 55 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1973 which provided for continuation of proceedings in the event of death or an insolvency. Shri Karmali therefore urged that the appeals by the widows to the Board were competent. He further argued that in case of these appeals, they were presented to the Board within two years of the dates of receipt of the two orders of the Collector of Customs and the Addl. Collector of Customs. This was within the time limit of old Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. However, in these cases of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... munication of the Collector s orders and hence they were prima facie time barred under old Section 128 of the Customs Act and they were correctly rejected by the Board for the aforesaid reasons. It could not therefore be said that the appellants invoked Section 130 also in their memo of appeal. So far as the appeal filed in 1979 was concerned, the same was beyond the limitation period of two years under Section 130. The appellants cannot now argue that the Board should have treated their requests for relief in terms of Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. In fact, the conduct of Shri Abdul Kadar was blameworthy as he avoided service of summons and service of the adjudication order. The appeals were therefore time barred and correctly rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect. Further, if any such request had been made in terms of Section 130(1) of the C.A., the Board would have dealt with this request in the orders. We find that the two orders of the Board are silent on this point. This is in further confirmation of the presumption that no such request was made to the Board. The two orders were passed by different Members and it would be too much of a coincidence to presume that both the Members failed to take note of these specific requests of the appellants. Therefore, we are unable to accept the appellants contention that the Board should have examined the appellant s request in terms of Section 130(1) of the C.A. It is further seen that when the same advocate had handed the appeals to the Board, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 128 of the C.A. Therefore, in such circumstances the grant of hearing would have been meaningless. The principles of natural justice do not require that an opportunity for the hearing should have been given to the appellants when their appeals were time barred. As observed by the Supreme Court in Shri K.L. Tripathi v. The State Bank of India AIR - 1984 - SC Page 273, the rules of natural justice are flexible and cannot be put on any rigid formula. Considering therefore the fact that the appeals were time barred and the delay could not be condoned by the Board, we hold that there was no lack of compliance with the principles of natural justice in denying hearings to the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances. In the foregoing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
