1985 (3) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri K. Chandramouli, SDR, for the respondent. [Order per : S. Venkatesan, Senior Vice-President.]. -This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-28/80E dated 27-12-1980 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, rejecting as time-barred the appeal made to him. The basic facts are that the appellants had exported a quantity of "Indian rice bran extraction" which was provisionally allow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellate Collector and by an order dated 2-7-1980 the Appellate Collector had held that no export duty could be recovered on such goods. It was claimed that the case of the appellants was squarely covered by the above decision. 3.  As regards the rejection of their appeal as time-barred, Shri Venkataraman submitted that at the time the revision application (which is now being heard by us as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order appealed against. On sufficient grounds this period could be extended by another three months, but in no case could it exceed six months. In the present case, the appeal was filed to the Appellate Collector more than 2½ after the date of communication of the original order and it was therefore well beyond the max....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o a suit, however frivolous the claim, that the law confers no such right to sue. A suit for maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But the position in regard to appeals is quite the opposite. The right of appeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its maintainability must have the clear authority of law. That explains why the right o....