Mithubava Padhiyar Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Mithubava Padhiyar vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 07, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25517

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/25517
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Sep 07, 2001
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mithubava Padhiyar

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(140)ELT125Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal has been filed in 22nd december, 1997 against the order of the adjudicating authority passed on 27.4.1985 and issued on 23.5.1985.2. it is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is an uneducated and layman. she also states that the appellant has lost all the property in earthquake which happened in the year 2001, 16 years after the adjudication order was passed. therefore she pleads mercy of the tribunal.3. i have considered the ingenious plea made by the learned advocate.when the order has been passed in 1985, the person has to explain to the tribunal for excusing the delay in filing the appeal belatedly. it is true that applicant is a layman and uneducated. these two things cannot take the cover of enforcement of the rights belatedly. i sympathize that he has lost the property in the earthquake but that does not mean he could have filed the appeal belatedly.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal has been filed in 22nd December, 1997 against the order of the adjudicating authority passed on 27.4.1985 and issued on 23.5.1985.

2. It is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is an uneducated and layman. She also states that the appellant has lost all the property in earthquake which happened in the year 2001, 16 years after the adjudication order was passed. Therefore she pleads mercy of the Tribunal.

3. I have considered the ingenious plea made by the learned advocate.

When the order has been passed in 1985, the person has to explain to the Tribunal for excusing the delay in filing the appeal belatedly. It is true that applicant is a layman and uneducated. These two things cannot take the cover of enforcement of the rights belatedly. I sympathize that he has lost the property in the earthquake but that does not mean he could have filed the appeal belatedly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Mithubava Padhiyar vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Miscellaneous