9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e filed the appeal within 90 days i.e. on or before 12-4-2002, as envisaged under Section 129D of the Customs Act. There was a delay of 175 days in filing these appeals. It was submitted on behalf of the parties that the appellants could not file appeals within the stipulated time since the appellant is having business establishment at Malaysia and also during the relevant time the appellant was staying at Malaysia. During that time, the appellant was admitted for treatment for slungles (Herpes Zoster). It was also submitted that the appellant was able to visit India only during the fourth week of September 2002. On coming to India, he handed over the relevant papers/documents to the Advocate to file an appeal. It was submitted that the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Notification. No. 204/92 and I demand the duty foregone amounting to Rs. 21,48,789/- under proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with appropriate interest. (ii) I hold that the mulberry raw silk valued at Rs. 63,22,728/- imported vide Bill of Entry No. 14075 dated 19-3-97, 50978 dated 17-10-97, 3734 dated 27-1-98 and 10165 dated 24-2-98 are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(o) of Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow them to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs only). (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 21,48,789/- on M/s. Krishnappa Silk Weaving Factory, Bangalore under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Proprietrix of the concern. Further, the medical certificate is also not clear about his inhealth and the duration in which he was suffering which compelled him not to leave Malaysia. In view of the various discrepancies, we do not find any justification to condone the inordinate delay. It is well settled position now that to condone the delay not only there must be a cause and cause must be sufficient. In the instant case, neither the maintainability of the appeal has been explained nor sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 175 days in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, application to condone the delay is hereby rejected. In the result, appeals are dismissed as barred by time. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
