9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case including the written and the oral submissions made by the appellant and his advocate. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original C. No. VIII/10/41/80/C6, dated 23-3-1981, passed by Assistant Collector (Appraising) Mangalore. The Assistant Collector (Apprising) Mangalore in his said order with reference to a consignment of mild steel scrap of pipe cuts imported by the appellant from Kuwait had ac the price declared by them but had classified the goods under Ch. 7333/40 as against appellant classification under Ch. 7303/05. Since the classification under Ch. 73.33/40 attractive a higher rate of duty the appellants soon after the receipt of the Order-in-Original had preferred a civil writ petition on 8-4-1981 in the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 23-3-81 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner (appraising) Mangalore, the assessee instead of filing an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals), who is a quasi-judicial authority, filed the writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. Now after withdrawing the petition on the ground that cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, the correct course of action open to the appellants was to file a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka. It would be improper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals), being part of departmental appellate forum to sit on judgment on the matter already dealt by a High Court. If the appellant had the intention of filing appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) he should have obtained specific directions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dopted, then even orders passed on 1-10-1982 cannot be taken in appeal to the Tribunal. The result would be that a person would have no right of appeal against an order passed on 1-10-1982. The argument, therefore, has to be rejected. 2. Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE [1994 (71) E.L.T. 347 (S.C.)] Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal occasioned due to pursuing remedy before wrong forum is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. 3. Carborundum Universal Ltd. v. CCE [2003 (160) E.L.T. 434 (T)] -do- 4. Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. CCE [1996 (82) E.L.T. 172 (S.C.)] -do- 5. CCE v. Hotline CPT Ltd. [2007 (211) E.L.T. 453 (T)] -do- 6. Globe Traders v. UOI [2004 (174) E.L.T. 434 (Bom.)] -do- 3. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sides. After perusing the impugned order, we find that the High Court of Delhi did not give any specific direction to condone the delay that would arise in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). It merely permitted the appellants to withdraw the petition to seek an alternative remedy. The word 'liberty' to file the appeal before the appropriate court does not imply that the Commissioner (Appeals) can automatically condone the delay beyond the statutory period fixed in the statue. Therefore we have considered opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period as held by the judgments cited supra by the learned SDR. The learned Counsel strongly relied on the judgments not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
