TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have had the opportunity of filing the application for condonation of delay, as provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 129DD of the Customs Act - revision has been dispatched on 8-1-2002, which is well within the period of limitation, and therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner should be treated as filed in time and the order of the first respondent deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for passing orders on merits. - Delay condoned. - W.P. No. 46309 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2013 - R. Sudhakar, J. Shri Murugappan, for the Petitioner. Shri Xavier Felix, SCGSC, for the Respondent. ORDER The writ petition is filed for issuanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... donation of delay. Hence, Govt. is not satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the prescribed period of 3 months, and therefore, the revision application is rejected. 3. Challenge the above order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. When it is an admitted fact that the order-in-appeal was received by the petitioner on 10-10-2001, the period of limitation of three months, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, would expire on 9-1-2002, and the revision has been dispatched on 8-1-2002, for which, proof has been filed in the form of postal receipt. 5. It is another matter that the revision was received on a subsequent date. To ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was in time, on the very period of time stated to have been allowed by law, it is unnecessary to consider the contention of Sri Manjunath that there is no period limitation prescribed for filing an appeal in the scheme itself. 6. The same analogy will apply to the present case. In any event, at the time of raising a query on 25-1-2002, the administrative office would have verified whether the revision has been filed in time and whether it had been communicated to the petitioner/applicant. In that event the petitioner would have had the opportunity of filing the application for condonation of delay, as provided under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 129DD of the Customs Act, which is extracted hereunder for ready referen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
