TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court. The delay is condoned on the condition of payment of costs of ₹ 20,000/- to the Respondent which shall be paid by the Department latest by 31/05/2019. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. - NOTICE OF MOTION NO.743 OF 2018 IN CUSTOMS APPEAL (L) NO.52 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2019 - AKIL KURESHI And SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for Applicant / Appellant. Ms. Khooshnum R. Daviervala a/w Mr. Yazdi P. Jijina i/b Mulla Craigie Blunt Caroe for Respondent. ORDER P. C.: 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Customs Department seeking condonation of delay of 1096 days in filing the Customs Appeal. The record would suggest that initially to challenge the Judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. I say that a search of office records reveals the department did not receive an ordinary/certified copy of Order dated 31 07 2015 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court dismissing Civil Appeal NO.517 of 2006 [D24110 of 2005]. I say that assuming that the date of receipt of the Certified Copy of the Order is 31 07 2015 [which is the date of passing of the Order], then the above Appeal ought to have been filed on 18 08 2015. I say that the delay of 1096 days in filing this Appeal has been computed by taking 153 days of 2015, 366 days of 2016, 365 days of 2017 and 212 days of 2018 [1116 less 20 = 1096]. 8. I say that inadvertently and by oversight, the department failed to realise, process and file an Appeal before this Honourable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent is that the Department was aware about the disposal of the Appeal by the Supreme Court. Firstly, the Department's Counsel was present before the Supreme Court when the order was passed. Secondly, it was also brought to the notice of the Department by the Respondent. There is no explanation for delay in filing the Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, in addition to taking us through the Affidavit in Reply, contended that the Department has repeatedly been lethargic in filing the Appeals. She relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court to contend that a delay which is not explained, even if caused by the Government body, should not be condoned. 4. Having thus heard the learned Counsel for the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
