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>Tribunal Condoned Delay in Filing Supplementary Appeals due to Applicant's Diligence</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG Versus RAIDANG TEA AND SAMDANG TEA ESTATES AND OTHERS</h3> The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the Supplementary Appeals, considering the Applicant's actions as bona fide and diligent. The sudden ... - Issues:Condonation of delay in filing Appeals.Analysis:The Appeals by the Revenue were consolidated for hearing regarding the condonation of delay in filing them. The Applicant filed a single Appeal in the Tribunal against a composite Order in Appeal by the Collector, which disposed of multiple Appeals. The Registry later informed the Applicant to file separate Appeals corresponding to the number of Appeals disposed of by the Collector. The Applicant, citing a previous case, requested that the single Appeal filed be treated as Appeals against all orders made by the Collector. Subsequently, the Applicant filed multiple identical sets of Appeals as per the Registry's direction and submitted condonation Applications in each of the Appeals. The opposition argued that separate Appeals should have been filed for each case and that the delay was not properly explained as required by the law.The Tribunal noted that historically, it was common practice to entertain one Revision against an Order-in-Appeal disposing of multiple Appeals. The sudden requirement by the Tribunal to file separate Appeals could lead to a miscarriage of justice, hence the condonation of delay was considered necessary. The Applicant's actions were deemed bona fide and diligent, as they initially filed a single Appeal within the limitation period and later filed the Supplemental Appeals promptly. The Tribunal referenced past court decisions to support the Applicant's case, emphasizing the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in condoning delays. It was concluded that the Applicant had not acted negligently or in bad faith, and there was a genuine conflict in views regarding the number of Appeals required to be filed.Based on the above analysis and in line with previous court decisions, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the Supplementary Appeals. Consequently, all the Appeals were scheduled for hearing in July 1985.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
