TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (8) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. Due date 1. C/2019/89 29-6-1988 29-9-1988 2. C/2020/89 29-6-1988 29-9-1988 3. C/2021/89 29-6-1988 29-9-1988 4 C/2022/89 28-6-1988 28-9-1988 5. C/2023/89 8-8-1988 8-11-1988 Serial No. I to 3 in the above captioned appeals were filed on 21st July, 1989, whereas the due date was 29th September, 1988. Thus there is a delay of 295 days. In Serial No. 4 in appeal there is a delay of 296 days whereas the appeal in Sl. No. 5 there is a delay of 255 days. Since the common issue is involved in the above captioned applications for condonation of delay are disposed of by a consolidated order. 2. Shri R. Sethuraman, Company Secretary of the applicant company has appeared on beha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will suffer irreparable loss. 3. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent stated that there is no sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals. He has pleaded that after expiry of the limitation the appellant is to explain each and every day's delay, in support of his argument, he has referred to the following judgments :- 1. AIR 1962 (S.C.) 361 - Ramlal v. Rewa Coal Fields. 2. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) - Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. 3. 1988 (38) E.L.T. 712 (Tribunal) - Collector of Central Excise v. F.G.P. Ltd. 4. 1985 (21) E.L.T. 518 (Tribunal) - Angus Company Ltd. v. Collector of Cus. 5. 1987 (27) E.L.T. 102 (Tribunal) - Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Appeals, Madras had admitted number of appeals for re-assessment of goods under Section 86/86 in respect of other Importers and the Customs House, Madras has resorted to provisional assessment of similar goods. A number of our consignments have been provisionally assessed, which clearly indicate that the Customs House itself was well aware of the fact that the original assessments made by them was not in accordance with the tariff. All these made us to believe that the Customs House will on its own reopen the earlier cases of erroneous assessments and grant refund "Suo Moto". This has resulted in ourselves not filing this petition in time. We request for condonation of delay and the same was due to genuine reasons. We may reiterate that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble, and it cannot be deemed to be a sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal and others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 (S.C.) 361 had laid the following principles :- "In construing Sec. 5 it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtention of period shows that the delay was due to any of the facts mentioned in the explanation that would be treated as sufficient cause, and after it is treated as sufficient cause the question may then arise whether discretion should be exercised in favour of the party or not." Hon'ble Supreme Court's case of Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) is a full Bench decision and as such the same has to be followed. Shri Sethuraman, the learned authorised representative of the appellant company had placed strong reliance on the Madras High Court judgment in the case of Harakchand Uttamchand and Others v. Union of India and D. Cawasji & Co. v. State of Mysore reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 154 (S.C.). ....