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

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (4) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hri Yogesh Kumar, claiming himself to be the clerk of Shri Vinay Garg, Advocate, also appeared only to draw the attention of the Bench regarding the said request. Accordingly, we perused the application and the submissions contained in their further written submissions, dated 10-9-1993 and heard Shri Somesh Arora, learned JDR. 3. In their application the appellants have stated that the impugned order in the present appeal was communicated to them on 25-3-1992 and as per sub-section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it ought to have been filed on or before 25-6-1992 but it was received in the Registry on 25th August, 1992. They have stated that in the present case the impugned Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Collector o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they have explained the delay occurred after 14-8-1992 stating that 15th 16th August were closed holidays being Saturday Sunday and on 18th 19th August, 1992 the memo of appeal which was filed before the Collector (Appeals) was modified and their counsel at Lucknow finalised the same on 22nd August, 1992, as he was away during the intervening period on account of the professional work. Opposing the prayer for Condonation of Delay, the learned JDR, Shri Somesh Arora, submitted that the said grounds cannot be termed as sufficient cause for Condonation of Delay and cited the following cases : (i) Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. National Chemicals Indus. Ltd., 1986 (26) E.L.T. 151, wherein it was held that delay is condonable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 35B of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. But meanwhile the Central Government amended Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by Central Excises (Fourth) Amendment Rules, 1992. By this amendment in Rule 2 in sub-rule (2)(ii) for the words and includes an Additional Collector occurring after Clause (B) the words, letter and figures and includes an Additional Collector except for the purposes of Chapter VI-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944" were substituted. However, the appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) on 23-6-1992, that is to say, within the prescribed period of three months. But it was returned by him under his covering letter dated 30-7-1992 which was received by the appellants on 7-8-1992. On receipt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Act, 1944". Prior to this amendment, the words except for the purposes of Chapter VI-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944" were not there in original. Rule 2(ii) with the result that after this amendment all orders passed by the Additional Collector became appealable before the Collector (Appeals) and not before this Tribunal as it was originally provided for. The necessity for amending the said Rule by the Central Excises (Fourth) Amendment Rules, 1992 is apparent. Since by the Finance Bill, 1992 (which recieved the assent of the President on 14-5-1992) the definition of Collector of Customs given in Clause (8) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 which define Collector includes an Additional Collector of Customs was amended b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l matters, such amendment should take effect retrospectively whereas the other line of approach may be that it may be prospective. In fact, this controversy was raised before this Tribunal in the case of Om Prakash Arun Kumar v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (64) E.L.T. 492. In that case the impugned order was passed by the Additional Collector on 14-5-1992, that is to say, the date on which the Finance Bill, 1992 received the assent of the President, but it was communicated to the importer therein after 14-5-1992 and, therefore, the question which was agitated was, as to whether in view of the amendment made in the definition of the Collector of Customs in Section 2(8) of the Customs Act, the appeal would lie before this Tribunal because the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates