Cc Vs. Cork International (P) Ltd.

Cc vs Cork International (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided May 24, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18339

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/18339
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge: S Peeran, A T V.K.
Decided On: May 24, 2000
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Respondent

Cork International (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(93)LC169Tri(Chennai)

Excerpt

.....have refused to condone the delay and held the same to be not a good cause for condoning the delay. he contends that the identical ground having been rejected by the apex court, the other citations relied in the application are applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of collector v. mrs. katiji and in the case of harsha tractor v. collector 1989 (41) elt 8 sc : 1991 (34) ecr 574 (sc) : ecr c cus 1440 sc. the delay was on account of mistaken legal advice and even in the case of ramlal and ors. v. riwa coal field ltd. , the cause was not shown in the present case, so also in the case of g. ratnagoeda major etc. v. the special land acquisition officer 1988 sc 524. therefore, he contends that the identical grounds having been rejected by the apex court, the application requires to be rejected.3. ld. dr. shri sudarsan prays for condoning the delay in the light of the citations given by the commissioner.4. on a careful consideration of the submission, we notice that the cause shown is not clear and sufficient. the commissioner has not indicated as to how there was a delay in the group of file and as to who the person who caused the delay and who was absent in the group to file the appeal. this very identical reasons has not been accepted by the larger bench of the apex court in the case of uoi v. tata yodogawa ltd. supra and hence the ruling of the apex court in the above mentioned case would apply directly to the present facts. the other judgements cited by the commissioner in the application were on general principles of condonation where there was a delay of one or two days or even larger period, but the grounds were held to be sufficient cause and good reasons for condoning the delay. while, in the present case, such a ground has already been held by the apex court as not sufficient cause and therefore, the tribunal being a subordinate authority is bound by the apex court's ratio of tata yodogawa ltd. case. therefore, applying the said ratio,.....

Full Judgment

1. By this application, the Commissioner is seeking condonation of delay of 25 days on the simple ground that there was a delay in receipt of relevant files from the group and the absence of the concerned officers. The said ground is not supported by the affidavit of the concerned officers who had caused the delay and the name of the officer who was absent in the group in filing the appeal. Therefore the ground taken is opposed by the Ld. Advocate for the respondents.

2. Ld. Advocate submits that the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. as reported in 1988 (38) ELT 739 : 1988 (19) ECR 569 (SC) on identical grounds have refused to condone the delay and held the same to be not a good cause for condoning the delay. He contends that the identical ground having been rejected by the Apex Court, the other citations relied in the application are applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case of Collector v. Mrs. Katiji and in the case of Harsha Tractor v. Collector 1989 (41) ELT 8 SC : 1991 (34) ECR 574 (SC) : ECR C Cus 1440 SC. The delay was on account of mistaken legal advice and even in the case of Ramlal and Ors. v. Riwa Coal Field Ltd. , the cause was not shown in the present case, so also in the case of G. Ratnagoeda Major etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer 1988 SC 524. Therefore, he contends that the identical grounds having been rejected by the Apex Court, the application requires to be rejected.

3. Ld. DR. Shri Sudarsan prays for condoning the delay in the light of the citations given by the Commissioner.

4. On a careful consideration of the submission, we notice that the cause shown is not clear and sufficient. The Commissioner has not indicated as to how there was a delay in the group of file and as to who the person who caused the delay and who was absent in the group to file the appeal. This very identical reasons has not been accepted by the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. supra and hence the ruling of the Apex Court in the above mentioned case would apply directly to the present facts. The other judgements cited by the Commissioner in the application were on general principles of condonation where there was a delay of one or two days or even larger period, but the grounds were held to be sufficient cause and good reasons for condoning the delay. While, in the present case, such a ground has already been held by the Apex Court as not sufficient cause and therefore, the Tribunal being a subordinate authority is bound by the Apex Court's ratio of Tata Yodogawa Ltd. case. Therefore, applying the said ratio, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and as a result, the appeal/stay is also rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tami... Same Parties Cc vs Cork International (P) Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S Peeran, A T V.K.