international Traders Vs. Collector of Customs

international Traders vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 25, 1990

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/5667

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/5667
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Apr 25, 1990
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

international Traders

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (1990)LC16Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....was some snag in the computer and as such, the appeal could not be filed on that day. the appeal was prepared a little late on the same day and thereafter the applicant rushed to the tribunal for the filing of the same, but the registry had closed down by that time. he has pleaded that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal.3. miss renuka mann, the learned sdr stated that in view of the facts stated by the learned advocate, she leaves it to the bench.4. i have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. the appeal was filed in the registry on 1st march, 1990. the bonafide of the applicant should not be doubted. the application is duly supported with an affidavit sworn before a notary public. there is no counter-affidavit. there is no negligence on the part of the applicant. in view of the judgment of the supreme court in the case of collector of land acquisition, anantnag v. mst. katiji reported in 1987 (28) elt 185, i hold that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. in that matter there was a delay of four days. in view of the judgment of the supreme court in the case of ramlal and ors. v. rewa coalfields reported in air 1962 sc 361, the appellant is not expected to explain his conduct till the last date of hearing. after the expiry of limitation, the appellant has to explain each and every day's delay. in the present matter, the last day of limitation in terms of provisions of sub-section (3) of section 129a of the customs act, 1962 was 28th february, 1990. the appeal was filed on 1st march, 1990. accordingly, i hold that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. the delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned.

Full Judgment

1. M/s. International Traders, 51-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7, have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. In Column No. 3, date of communication of the order has been mentioned as 30th November, 1989. The appeal was received in the Registry on 1st March, 1990. Thus there is a delay of one day.

2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He has pleaded that the appeal could not be filed on the last date of the hearing as the rough draft of the appeal was prepared, but there was some snag in the computer and as such, the appeal could not be filed on that day. The appeal was prepared a little late on the same day and thereafter the applicant rushed to the Tribunal for the filing of the same, but the Registry had closed down by that time. He has pleaded that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal.

3. Miss Renuka Mann, the learned SDR stated that in view of the facts stated by the learned advocate, she leaves it to the Bench.

4. I have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was filed in the Registry on 1st March, 1990. The bonafide of the applicant should not be doubted. The application is duly supported with an affidavit sworn before a Notary Public. There is no counter-affidavit. There is no negligence on the part of the applicant. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185, I hold that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In that matter there was a delay of four days. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and Ors. v. Rewa Coalfields reported in AIR 1962 SC 361, the appellant is not expected to explain his conduct till the last date of hearing. After the expiry of limitation, the appellant has to explain each and every day's delay. In the present matter, the last day of limitation in terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was 28th February, 1990. The appeal was filed on 1st March, 1990. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. The delay in the filing of the appeal is condoned.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties international Traders vs Collector of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition