1990 (6) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Calcutta vide No. S. 101-181/83 dt. 31-12-1983. An appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) was also dismissed on 23-6-1984 as per order No. Cal-Cus-1725/84. It was also stated in the application that a number of correspondence were made in this regard by the EREB (applicant) with the Customs authorities and Finally it was informed by the Member, Central Board of Excise & Customs that an appeal is to be filed vide his letter dated 29-7-88. Hence in the meantime valuable time was lost and hence the delay may be condoned. Along with the application a chronological date of events were also furnished. It was stated therein as under :- "To this Collector (Appeals), Customs House, Calcutta rejected the above appeal vide their letter No. Ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Elias Pvt. Ltd. (clearing agents) and also after ascertaining the formalities to file the appeal filed it on 3-1-1989. He also relied on the following decisions : (1) AIR 1974 S.C. 259 (2) AIR 1989 Gujarat 44 (3) AIR 1971 SC 374 (4) Decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Anantnag v. Katijabi. 5. The learned SDR, Sri M.N. Biswas contended that in the date sheet furnished along with first application the applicant has admitted that in November 1987 the applicant collected the impugned order copy from M/s. Elias Pvt. Ltd. and hence the time runs from November, 1987, and the delay from then onwards is not explained satisfactorily. He therefore contended that there was no sufficient cause made out to condone t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....over, it may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Art. 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 32 and this Court which has been a ssigned the role of asentinel on the qui vive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like." That decision was made on the basis of claim of a fundamental right under the Constitution and the same principles are not applicable while the condonation application of filing an appeal is concerned. In this case it is for the applicant to convince the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause in filing the appeal at a delayed date. ....