TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Shipping Corp's Revision Applications Dismissed Due to Delay in Filing</h1> <h3>SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA</h3> SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 599 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Transfer of revision applications to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Request for condonation of delay in filing revision applications.3. Opposition to the grant of condonation of delay.4. Legal analysis of the condonation of delay request.5. Dismissal of appeals due to delay in filing.Transfer of Revision Applications:The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Calcutta filed revision applications before the Addl. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, aggrieved by orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta. Upon the establishment of the Tribunal, these revision applications were transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962.Condonation of Delay Request:The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the revision applications citing reasons like misplacement of papers. The appellant's representative requested leniency due to the circumstances, emphasizing that misplacing papers constituted sufficient cause for the court to exercise its discretion in condoning the delay.Opposition to Condonation of Delay:The Senior D.R. opposed the grant of condonation of delay, indicating a disagreement with the appellant's request for leniency in light of the delay in filing the revision applications.Legal Analysis of Condonation Request:The judgment highlighted the importance of the appellant's conduct in seeking condonation of delay. It referenced legal precedents to emphasize that misplacing papers without due care and attention does not constitute sufficient cause for an extension of time. The court noted that the appellant failed to file separate applications for condonation of delay with supporting affidavits, which is a requirement for such requests.Dismissal of Appeals:After considering arguments from both sides and examining the legal provisions, the court concluded that the appellant did not have sufficient cause for the delay in filing the revision applications. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, without delving into the merits of the appeals due to the limitation issue.
TaxTMI 