NIWAS SPINNING MILLS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Niwas Spinning Mills Limited have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 12 -10 -1993. In Col. 3 against date of communication of the order in Form No. CAS it was shown as 22 -9 -1992. In terms of provisions of Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, an appeal has to be filed within 3 months and as such the last date for filing of the appeal in the present matter is 22 -12 -1992. Thus there is a delay of 9 months and 13 days. Shri S.A. Jadhav, the learned advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the appellants has reiterated the contentions made in the condonation of delay application. He pleaded that the goods were imported in 1991 and thereafter the clearance was taken in June 1992 after 7 months and the appellants had difficulty financially and as such they could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. In support of his arguments, he cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi and Ors., reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 537 and another in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). He pleaded that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause and the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

(2.) SHRI S.K. Tyagi, the learned JDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent pleaded that the application for condonation of delay was not supported with an affidavit. He further pleaded that the appellants were not vigilant and there was negiligence on their part and the reasons shown by the appellants does not bear any Sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In support of his arguments he cited the following decisions: -

(3.) WE have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is dated 26 -5 -1992 and was issued on 22 -9 -1992. We are told by Shri Jadhav, the learned advocate that it was received on 28 -9 -1992 but in Col. 3 by mistake the date of communication was shown as 22 -9 -1992 and it is in fact the date of issue. Shri Jadhav had mainly argued that the delay had occurred due to the late clearance of the goods and the appellants had been busy in managing other affairs as a single person he could not instruct his counsel within the stipulated period and thus the delay occurred. Shri Jadhav had cited the following decisions: -