TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of law and arising out of Appeal No. CD(T)CAL-11/79 disposed of vide order No. 479/CAL/1984-3104 dated 16th November, 1984 to the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay. Relevant contents of the said application for condonation of delay are reproduced as under :- "That the Reference Application was despatched from Silchar in Assam on 13-2-1985. That normal communications, public transport and other services remained greatly disrupted in and around Silchar at the relevant time due to unnatural atmospheric disturbances. That the Reference Application that has been forwarded on 13-2-1985 was prepared in Calcutta by the learned Advocate of the Appellant who despatched the same to the Applicant by Registered Post from G.P.O. Calcutta on 29-1-1985 for signature by the Applicant, to ensure quick despatch but unfortunately it reached the Applicant on 12-2-1985. That the applicant in his turn despatched the same by Registered Post on 13-2-1985 without wasting any time. That it is being reported that Application reached the Tribunal Office on 20-2-1985. That the father of the Applicant unfortunately died on 24-1-1985 and his S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rning period at the relevant time and as such the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late submission of the reference application. In case the delay is not condoned, the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss. 3. In reply, Shri A.K. Chatterjee, the learned JDR has pleaded that the postal delay in the filing of the appeal is not a sufficient cause but the applicant's father's death is a sufficient cause and he has got no objection if the delay in the filing of reference application is condoned. 4. The applicant's father had expired on 24th January, 1985 and the mourning period continued upto 23rd February, 1985 and the appeal was posted per Registered A/D on the 13th February, 1985. I hold that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late submission of the reference application. I am inclined to condone the delay by virtue of proviso to section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The delay in the filing of the reference application is condoned. 5. Announced in open court. - Inasmuch as, in my opinion, no question of law does arise within the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. I decline to draw statement of the case and proceed to state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k, but he was not available at the address. The applicant also could not produce him. The revenue authority did not accept his story and had reason to believe that the silver lumps in question had been illegally imported into India from Bangladesh and had seized the same. A show cause notice under C.No.VIII/10/10/74/130 dated 7th September, 1974 was issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong calling upon the applicant as to why the said silver tumps should not be confiscated under section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be levied. In reply to the said show cause notice, the applicant vide his reply dated 31st October, 1974 stated that he had not violated any provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as alleged in the show cause notice dated 7th September, 1974. The applicant had stated that he is a certified goldsmith and the silver was purchased locally from various persons at his premises at Silchar, and was taken to Agartala for selling at a better price. Failing to get a better price, he was returning to Silchar with the silver and he was detained by the Customs Officer on 21st ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be held to have been rendered invalid. 3. The Appellate Tribunal erred in law and acted improper in selecting issues and considering them in the manner done in its order taking them out of their contexts. 4. The Appellate Tribunal erred in law and acted improperly in treating the questions of violation of principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity, of making representation and of being heard as two distinct and separate issues and while considering only one items under each of the two issues respectively. 5. After positive finding that the applicant denied his purported statement dated 22-3-1974 by his letter dated 26-3-1974 the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in relying on the said purported statement dated 22-3-1974 and quoting excerpts from the said statement - most likely quoting from the unattested and wrongly translated copy in English ignoring the fact that the applicant was denied the opportunity of disproving the said statement and in the adjudication proceeding story of his purchase of silver at Agartala was held not to be true. 6. The appellate Tribunal erred in law in finding - there were no violation of principles of natural justice relying on....