1988 (12) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ondent. Shri Rangaswamy, learned Advocate for the appellants while maintaining that the appeal is not barred by limitation without prejudice to this contention agreed to file an application for condonation of delay - that is how the present application for condonation of delay of 104 days in presenting the revision application now appeal has been filed. 2. At the hearing Shri M.A. Rangaswamy, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated 18-7-1981 was received by the appellants on 14-8-1981. However, in terms of the order the appellants paid duty as levied on 4-12-1981 and filed a claim for refund of the same on 21-5-1982. He also submitted that as assessment dated 21-11....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the order which the law provides but from the date of service of demand quantifying the duty which the two decisions in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases lay down. We reject this argument. 4. Taking up next the condonation of delay application paras 5 to 10 of the same are material. The application sets out that at the time the impugned order was received by the appellants on 14-8-1981 the excise and customs work were being looked after by one Shri C.D. Sharma, a retired Inspector of the Central Excise Department. His services were terminated on 4-12-1981 whereafter he absented himself and handed over charge on 22-12-1981 to Shri D.P. Garg, Manager Purchase of the appellants. In January 1982 Shri D.P. Garg went abroad a....