https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75102 Bombay HC read down the second proviso to section 129B(2A) of the Customs Act, holding that automatic vacation of stay after 180 days cannot operate against an appellant who is not responsible for the delay. The court applied the principle that a statutory disposal timeline should not defeat the substantive right of appeal where the tribunal fails to hear the matter within time or the delay is otherwise not attributable to the appellant. On that basis, the stay was not treated as vacated on the facts, and relief was granted. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75102 Bombay HC read down the second proviso to section 129B(2A) of the Customs Act, holding that automatic vacation of stay after 180 days cannot operate against an appellant who is not responsible for the delay. The court applied the principle that a statutory disposal timeline should not defeat the substantive right of appeal where the tribunal fails to hear the matter within time or the delay is otherwise not attributable to the appellant. On that basis, the stay was not treated as vacated on the facts, and relief was granted. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75102