2011 (4) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s stated by the appellants that they had instructed their Advocates to address a letter to the Commissioner of Customs (EP) for supply of copies of documents like statements of Capt. S.S. Sahi, Managing Director of the second appellant-company, Ms. Mangala Bhandarkar and Mr. Mangesh Manohar Mundras. The Advocate, accordingly, sent a letter dated 10.7.2009 requesting for copies of the statements. It is stated that the Advocate received copies of the statements from the Commissioner s office on 16.9.2009. The appeals were filed on 30.9.2009. Yet another reason stated in the present applications is that one Shri K.N. Pandey, PRO, who is said to have looked after the legal affairs of the company during the material period, left the company on 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants cannot claim the benefit of the judgment cited by their counsel.   3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Copies of the impugned order were received by the appellants on 9.3.2009. The appeals should have been filed before 9.6.2009. They were actually filed on 30.9.2009. Even the appellants have not made any attempt to plead that they took any action before 9.6.2009 for filing the appeals. It is stated that, as instructed by them, their Advocate sent a letter dated 10.7.2009 to the Commissioner requesting for copies of certain statements. At the same time, it is stated that the statements were lost from the Advocate s office at the time of shifting office to the present address of the Advocate. The previ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it can hardly be said that the appellants were taking all possible steps to file the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay involved in the case cited by the counsel is said to be not huge, but the delay of the present appeals is as huge as three months and twenty-one days. In the cited case, the Hon ble Supreme Court was concerned with a COD application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The question before Their Lordships was whether sufficient cause was shown by the party for condonation of the delay involved in the filing of objections under certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that Code, a Civil Court has also inherent powers under Section 151 thereof to pass appropriate orders for t....