TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of three months, the Department has filed this application for condonation of delay. The reasons given for condonation of delay are as under : (1) The item is classifiable under heading 15 or 20 of the CTA depending upon the purity of the same. To verify it, a detailed study was required and it took a time to come to the conclusion that the Order-in-Appeal does not appear to be correct. (2) The file was thereafter submitted to Collector for his order on 15-11-84 and the sanction was accorded by the Collector on 17-11-84. The purity of the item imported is a deciding factor for classification of the item and if the Collector Appeal s decision is allowed to stand it will change the practice of the Custom House and will also have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Deputy Chief Chemist which was obtained in the year 1983 was available regarding this product, but in view of the order passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Dai-Ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd., Bombay (Order Nos. C-548 to 555/84 dated 21-8-1984), it became necessary to solicit the opinion of the technical expert in the light of the observations given by the Hon ble Members of the Bench deciding that matter and the technical expert took considerable time i.e. from 30-8-1984 to 7-11-1984. The time limit had not expired when the Department sought advice of the technical expert. It is on account of the delay caused in procuring technical advice of the Chief Chemist, the matter was delayed. Acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot carry the impression that they can bank on the indulgence of courts even if they take their own time in processing the papers of making up their mind. The Court would certainly not put up with any latches on the part of the Government officials in the matter of court proceedings, just as it would not do in the case of a private litigant. 6. He also cited various decisions of the East Regional Bench at Calcutta reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 656, 1984 ECR 1588, 1984 ECR 1163, 1984 ECR 1676, in support of his contention that each day delay should be explained and the delay should not be condoned in a light manner. According to Shri Babu Iyer, the Department is negligent in not pursuing the matter promptly which has resulted in filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities charged with a duty to implement the law should not be vigilant but one aspect cannot be overlooked that a departmental authority may delay the moving of the higher court with oblique motives and the public interest may suffer if such cause is thrown out merely on the ground of some delay which is also explainable. These are relevant considerations which must enter a judicial verdict before rejecting such case on the ground of delay. As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, if the delay is explainable then it should be condoned keeping in view the public interest. 8. Now, we have to see whether the Department-Appellant has been able to explain this delay of about 2 months or not. The Department has specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
