Chief Material Manager (B.i.) Vs. Collr. of Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. since the issue involved in the above-captioned applications for condonation of delay is similar, the same are being disposed of by this common order.2. shri lokesh narain bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the applicants has reiterated the contentions made in the applications for condonation of delay. shri bhattacharya, the learned advocate stated that the impugned order was received by the applicants on the 10th day of january, 1989 and in terms of provisions of sub-section (3) of section-129a of the customs act, 1962, the appeals had to be filed within three months whereas the appeals were filed on 17th april, 1989.thus, there is a delay of one week. he has stated that he had a fall from a moving mini bus. in support of his contention he has filed a medical certificate from dr. s.p. das, calcutta.3. shri m.n. biswas, the lerned sdr has got no objection for the condonation of delay in view of the personal difficulty of the learned consultant.4. we have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. during the course of arguments, we had enquired from the learned consultant as to the date of payment of appeal fees. shri bhattacharya, the learned consultant stated that the same was paid on 5th of april, 1989 in all the above-captioned six matters. accident, and or sickness of the consultant is a sufficient cause. accordingly, we hold that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals. the delay of seven days in all the above-captioned six appeals is condoned in terms of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 129a of the customs act, 1962.

Judgment:
1. Since the issue involved in the above-captioned applications for condonation of delay is similar, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Shri Lokesh Narain Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants has reiterated the contentions made in the applications for condonation of delay. Shri Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate stated that the impugned order was received by the applicants on the 10th day of January, 1989 and in terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section-129A of the Customs Act, 1962, the appeals had to be filed within three months whereas the appeals were filed on 17th April, 1989.

Thus, there is a delay of one week. He has stated that he had a fall from a moving mini bus. In support of his contention he has filed a medical certificate from Dr. S.P. Das, Calcutta.

3. Shri M.N. Biswas, the lerned SDR has got no objection for the condonation of delay in view of the personal difficulty of the learned Consultant.

4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. During the course of arguments, we had enquired from the learned Consultant as to the date of payment of appeal fees. Shri Bhattacharya, the learned Consultant stated that the same was paid on 5th of April, 1989 in all the above-captioned six matters. Accident, and or Sickness of the Consultant is a sufficient cause. Accordingly, we hold that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals. The delay of seven days in all the above-captioned six appeals is condoned in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.