STATE OF MADRAS Vs. RALLI BROS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance in this revision petition. The first point relates to the question whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The Tribunal in the circumstances set out in para. 4 of the Judgment considered that it is a fit case, where they should exercise their discretion in excusing the delay in filing, the appeal. That discretion cannot be interfered with.

(2.) The second objection raised was, the Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. For the reasons given in para, 6 of the judgment, we agree with the Tribunal and the appeal was competent,

(3.) The third and the last point is the manner in which the deduction is to be worked out under Rule 18(2) of the Turnover Rules, read with Rule 5 (1) (k). The language of Rule 18(2) does not present any, difficulty. It says: