TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (10) TMI 229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. The respondents have also filed cross objection which was presented in the registry on the 4th day of October, 1989, and the respondents has also filed an application for condonation of delay for the late submission of the cross objection. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant has appeared on behalf of the respondent has pleaded that the notice of the filing of the appeal was served on the respondents on 31st May 1989 and the respondents had to file the cross objection within 45 days from the receipt of the notice of the filing of the appeals and as such the cross objection should have been filed on or before the 15th day of July 1989 and there is a delay of 16 + 31 + 30 + 4 = 81 days. Shri Gopal Prasad the learned Consultant has st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that period should be deemed to be added to the period allowed for presenting appeal." Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant stated that the respondent applicants had duly informed the registry and there is no negligence on the part of the applicant and as such the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the cross objection. He has pleaded for the condonation of delay. 2. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned JDR who has appeared on behalf of the appellant - respondent applicant stated that the applicant started to pursue only on 12th September, 1989. The applicant was very much aware of his right to filing of the cross objection. The judgments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the suit. If the appellant were to succeed in that revision application, the suit would have been required to be heard on merits and there would have been no reason or occasion for him to resort to the provision newly inserted by the Ordinance, under which an application could be made for setting aside the order striking out the defence. The appellant was evidently advised wrongly as regards the true legal position, as a result of which he awaited the disposal of his revision application. He filed the application under S 17-A within 30 days of the date on which the revision application was dismissed. The appellant acted bona fide in pursuing his remedy by way of a revision application which he had already filed and which, if successful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods in warehoused in terms of provisions of Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector (Appeals) had held that the jurisdiction vests with the Assistant Collector, Bombay and not Kota and had rejected the appeals on the grounds of jurisdiction. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned JDR further relied on a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sandeep Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs, Chandigarh in Appeal No. CD/SB/3570/87-D & 3571/87-D vide order Nos. 192 & 193/89-D, dated 11th July, 1989 where the Tribunal had held that the effective clearances took place where the duty was paid and as such the jurisdiction was with the Assistant Collector Ludhiana. He has pleaded for the acceptance of the appeals. 5. Shri Gopal Prasad,....