TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, are accompanied by an application for condonation of delay , under signatures of the Principal Collector of Customs himself. The application in each case, received on the same date as the appeals, namely, on 31-7-1986, does not carry any date on which it purports to have been made, or signed, nor is it accompanied by any affidavit or proper verification. 2. After notice, these applications for COD came up for hearing first on 9-9-1986, in the presence of Shri D.K. Saha, SDR for the appellant, and Shri S.D. Jamdar, Manager, M/s Kirloskar Cummins Ltd., on their behalf, as respondents. After perusal of the application for COD made by the Collector, it was observed that 4-7-1985 has been given the cut off date when the file had been processed and an appropriate decision taken up, but the succeeding paragraph - which is paragraph 5 of the application - straightway mentioned that, thereafter, the recommendation was submitted, along with earlier order-in-appeal No. S/49-967 802/83 dated 30-11-1984, to the concerned Deputy Collector whereas paragraph 4 has stated that the file had been submitted by the dealing appraiser with a note for acceptance in line with the earlier orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to pursue the case with the Tribunal, in the present case, in the light of the CEGAT Order, passed by the West Regional Bench, Bombay, on 4-8-1986 in the case of M/s Thermax Pvt. Ltd. Shri Gopinath, while accordingly requesting that time may now be given for filing the time-chart, further stated that he would be placing reliance on a judgment of the Bombay High Court, as well as that of the West Regional Bench, Bombay, in case the matter was taken up for arguments. 6. Considering the fact, as already noted, that adjournment had been given on 9-9-1986 upto 23-9-1986 but that date has got extended to 17-10-1986, by virtue of postponement of the matter by the Registry, and in view of the fact that the respondents representative comes from a far-away place and he strongly opposed the request for adjournment on the ground of inconvenience and expenses; the request for further adjournment was declined. This is further in view of the fact that there was no specific request from the appellant Collector for time, as the learned SDR did not place any before us. We also feel that, in case the appellant was very keen in the matter, an officer could be deputed from Bombay to suitably ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 3-6-1985 (1985 ECR 1904 CEGAT) He added that it is recorded in one of the judgments reported in 1985 ECR 1904 CEGAT that the view propounded by the Tribunal in the earlier cases had been sought to be challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court but the Department had failed, and that the said admission on the part of the Departmental Representative was recorded in para 7 of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 9. Adverting to the plea, that the present appeal being on behalf of the Revenue, some indulgent view should be taken, Shri Jamdar controverted the same by placing reliance on a judgment of the Tribunal, in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. M/s National Chemicals Industries Ltd., New Delhi, reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 151 (Tribunal) = 1986 (8) ECR 346 CEGAT , wherein, after a detailed consideration of all the submissions made on behalf of the Department, including the judgment of the Kerala High Court on which the DR had earlier place a reliance, and relying on the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Bench has held that there was no substance in the plea that Government Departments should be treated differently than the individual suitor. He further argued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arted from the stage of the appraiser who, curiously, is shown (reference, para 4) to have recommended acceptance of the order-in-appeal, and then, suddenly, we find a statement that the recommendation was submitted to Deputy Collector along with another file; without indicating what the recommendation was? Thereafter, the only reason given is that the file was held up along with the other file, without details whatsoever as to the dates during which the file was so held up, or the reasons for which it was so. We already know the fate of the said appeals and the application for condonation of delay made therein, as is evidence by copies of the orders filed by the respondents (Orders No.41 42/86-WRB dated 17-7-1986). On that ground alone, the application for COD deserves to be rejected because no reason, independent of the said appeal, has been given in the present case. 12. However, the matter having been argued with reference to case law, we would be failing in our duty, if we dispose of the matter without adverting thereto. Respondents representative has placed before us judgments of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, where it has been held that once ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find ourselves unable to fall in line with the view expressed by the West Regional Bench in a subsequent order relied upon by the Department (Order No. 60/86-WRB) (supra); particularly when in the case of appellants filed against an order-in-appeal, similar to the one now under challenge before us, and where there was a similar amount of delay, the same very WRB has rejected an application for COD and, as a consequence, the appeals themselves, vide orders referred to above (supra). Copies of the telex messages, sent by the Senior Departmental Representative, and those received from the Assistant Collector concerned, vide copies supplied by the learned SDR subsequently, do not reflect any keenness to file the time-chart or supporting affidavit before the Tribunal because we do not find any instruction to that effect in the reply-message, the only instruction being to place reliance on a subsequent order of the West Regional Bench. 16. We, therefore, are of our considered view that in this case, no cause, much less a sufficient cause, has been established or made out for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period, as provided by Section 129A(3) of the Act, and that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
