TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filled on 17.10.86. Three delay condonation applications were filed and all the 3 applications are identically worded. It is stated in these applications that the order-in-appeal No. S/49-475, 476 478/85L, dated 10.2.86 was received in the Air Cargo Complex on 13.3.86, but was brought to the notice of the Collector Airport only on 14.8.86 who felt that relevant records had been deliberately suppressed by the dealing staff. By this time the time limits stipulated under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 has already expired. However, the undersigned was informed that an appeal against our identical order was already filed in the C.E.G.A.T. on 29.4.86 in the case of M/s. Bhagat Sons by the Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Bombay and is still pending for decision with the Hon ble C.E.G.A.T. In the circumstances, the undersigned is unable to honour the decision of the learned Collector (Appeals) passed on 18.2.86. The necessary appeal papers are being submitted along with this prayer for consideration of the Tribunal. In the circumstances explained above, the undersigned prays to the Hon ble Tribunal to be pleased to condone the delay for filing this appeal and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submitted by Shri Nankani that the contention of Shri Pattekar that the Collector came to know of the order only on 14.8.86 is not correct. In the appeals filed by the Collector the date of communication of the impugned order was shown as 13.3.86. It was also submitted by Shri Nankani that by reason of the standing order issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, communications including the orders are received by the Asst. Collector of Customs, Tribunal Co-ordination Unit and the service of notice or order on the Asst. Collector Tribunal Coordination Unit is to be considered as the service on the Collector and since such a service had taken place on 13.3.86 the appeals filed on 17.10.86 which is beyond the period of 3 months are clearly barred by limitation. Shri Nankani relied on the order of the Special Bench bearing No. 155/1986-B2 in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Adarsha Chemicals Fertilizers, Bombay. Shri Nankani urged that the Special Bench in the above order relying on its earlier order-in-appeal No. 1942 of 85 to 1945 of 85 had held that the date of service of the order on the Asstt. Collector was the date of service on the Collector of Customs and the ratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority and the Collector of Customs. This is a statutory requirement. The contention of Shri Nankani was that this statutory requirement had been complied with inasmuch as the Asstt. Collector Tribunal Co-ordination Unit had received the order in pursuance of the standing instructions issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Shri Nankani had not chosen to produce the copies of the standing instructions stated to have been issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Shri Nankani has however relied on the decision of the Special Bench B2 in M/s. Adarsha Chemicals Fertilizers Bombay. Relying on its earlier decision in Appeal No. 1942/85 to 1945/85-C, the Special Bench B2 did hold that the statutory requirement of communication of the order by the Collector (Appeals) is satisfied if the communication had been made to the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Refund. But then this Bench in M/s. Thermax Pvt. Ltd. in order No. 60/86 WRB, dated 4.8.86 however had taken a view different from the view taken by the Special Bench. In the absence of clear evidence regarding issue of authorisation by the Collector to the Asstt. Collector, Tribunal Co-ordination Unit to receive the orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies these institutions, the responsibility for the loss to the institution is hard to fix, and the employees take advantage of the same. What is more, with the growing corruption in varied forms, it is not difficult for interested parties to manage delays in taking legal proceedings against the debts of these institutions. If the Courts take a strict view of the matter without taking into consideration these realities, they will unwittingly become parties to these malpractices.........In all cases where public institutions such as banks are involved the stakes are bound to be high. It will not be difficult for unscrupulous persons to make a regular business out of deliberate delays in taking appropriate legal proceedings against the debtors. We do not suggest that the present is one such case. We are only uttering a word of caution against taking a mechanical view of the provisions of the law of limitation in such matters. As a matter of fact, the public institutions should not be hamstrung by any period of limitation. In the alternative there should be a special limitation provision for them. This however is a matter which the legislature has to tackle . 9. The case on hand is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
