Manager, Stores and Purchases Vs. Collector of Customs, Indian

Manager, Stores and Purchases vs Collector of Customs, Indian

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 10, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/6391

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/6391
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: H Chander, Vice-, K T P.K.
Decided On: Apr 10, 1991
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

Manager, Stores and Purchases

Respondent

Collector of Customs, Indian

Legal References

Reported In: (1991)(37)LC688Tri(Delhi)

Excerpt

.....(appeals) did not accept. shri m.k. sohal, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that in terms of provisions of section 128 of the customs act, 1962 collector (appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond 3 months. the right of filing of the appeal is vested by the statute and statute lays down certain conditions. the right of filing of appeal is subject to those conditions. he has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal as well as stay application.2. we have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. for the proper appreciation of the legal position relevant extract of sub-section (1) of section 128 of the customs act, 1962 is reproduced below: any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this act by an officer of customs lower in rank: than a collector of customs may appeal to the collector (appeals) within three months from the date of recommunication to him of such decision or order: provided that the collector (appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months.a simple perusal of the same section 128(1) of customs act, 1962 shows that the collector (appeals) has got power to condone the delay up to 3 months. beyond that he has no power to condone the delay. in view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the tribunal has got no power to condone the delay beyond three months in an appeal filed before the collector of customs (appeals). in the result, the appeal is dismissed. stay application filed by the appellant is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The Manager, Stores & Purchases, Indian Airlines, New Engg. Complex, Sahar, Vile Parle (E), Bombay-400038 has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

The said appeal was received in the registry on the 26th December, 1990. In column No. 3, the date of communication has been mentioned as 5.10.1990. In terms of provisions of Sub-section 3 of the Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962 an appeal has to be filed within 3 months.

Thus the present appeal before the Tribunal is within the stipulated period as well as within limitation. Shri S.N. Mathur, learned Consultant has appeared on behalf of the appellants and pleaded that the delay in the filing of the appeal is before the Collector (Appeals). Shri S.N. Mathur stated that the appeal was filed after a period of one year and 10 months from the date of the receipt of the order and Collector had dismissed the appeal being hit by limitation on the ground that he has no power to condone the delay beyond 3 months and that too if sufficient cause has been shown. Shri Mathur argued that there was sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal before the Collector as the appellants had treated the letter dated 13.6.1990 as an appealable order and had filed the appeal against that which the Collector (Appeals) did not accept. Shri M.K. Sohal, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that in terms of provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 Collector (Appeals) has no powers to condone the delay beyond 3 months. The right of filing of the appeal is vested by the statute and statute lays down certain conditions. The right of filing of appeal is subject to those conditions. He has pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal as well as stay application.

2. We have heard both sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. For the proper appreciation of the legal position relevant extract of Sub-section (1) of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 is reproduced below: Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank: than a Collector of Customs may appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of recommunication to him of such decision or order: Provided that the Collector (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months.

A simple perusal of the same Section 128(1) of Customs Act, 1962 shows that the Collector (Appeals) has got power to condone the delay up to 3 months. Beyond that he has no power to condone the delay. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the Tribunal has got no power to condone the delay beyond three months in an appeal filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Stay application filed by the appellant is also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Manager, Stores and Purchases vs Collector of Customs, Indian Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge H Chander, Vice-, K T P.K.