9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. Shri Rangaswamy, learned Advocate for the appellants while maintaining that the appeal is not barred by limitation without prejudice to this contention agreed to file an application for condonation of delay - that is how the present application for condonation of delay of 104 days in presenting the revision application now appeal has been filed. 2. At the hearing Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated 18-7-1981 was received by the appellants on 14-8-1981. However, in terms of the order the appellants paid duty as levied on 4-12-1981 and filed a claim for refund of the same on 21-5-1982. He also submitted that as assessment dated 21-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the order which the law provides but from the date of service of demand quantifying the duty which the two decisions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases lay down. We reject this argument. 4. Taking up next the condonation of delay application paras 5 to 10 of the same are material. The application sets out that at the time the impugned order was received by the appellants on 14-8-1981 the excise and customs work were being looked after by one Shri C.D. Sharma, a retired Inspector of the Central Excise Department. His services were terminated on 4-12-1981 whereafter he absented himself and handed over charge on 22-12-1981 to Shri D.P. Garg, Manager Purchase of the appellants. In January 1982 Shri D.P. Garg went abroad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The request was, however, strongly opposed by Shri L.C. Chakraborty, JDR. 5. In our view, sufficient cause for condoning delay in presenting revision application, now appeal, has not been made out. From the application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit it would appear that the appellants filed refund application due to mistaken advice of C.D. Sharma, retired Inspector, Central Excise and later they consulted a Counsel. Before mistaken legal advice can be considered ground for condoning the delay in presenting appeal or revision application it should be shown that the parties sought advice of competent counsel and such advice was given exercising reasonable skill and care after proper examination and due care and caution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
