PRAVIN MANSUKHLAL MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners solely on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act. The Appellate Authority further held that the petitioners have not filed any application for condonation of delay and, therefore, the question of delay being condoned would not arise. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It is needless to mention that the Appellate Authority has not considered the claim of the petitioners on merits.

(3.) Mr. Bulchandani, the learned Counsel for the Respondents with his habitual fairness states that the impugned order cannot be supported. It is needless to emphasise that under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act, the period of limitation will commence against the party who has suffered the order only from the date of receipt of the order. It is not disputed before me that from the date of receipt of the order, the appeal filed by the petitioner would be in time. Dr. Kantawala in support of this petition, drew my attention to various judgments of this Court as well as of various other High Courts to contend that date of receipt of the order is the starting point of limitation. It is needless to refer to any of these authorities since the point is not disputed before me. The impugned order, in my opinion, is clearly illegal and has to be quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) shall treat the appeal filed by the petitioners as having been filed within time and he shall dispose of the said appeal on merits;