2002 (8) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f CEGAT dated 21-3-2002 (Page 43), refusing to condone delay of 13 months. 3.Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts in nutshell are : The petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, dated 15-3-1982. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was pleased to reject the said appeal by his rea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppea1 within the prescribed period of two weeks pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11-10-1991, with the result, petitioners got the period for presenting the appeal extended. This Court by subsequent order dated 31-10-1991 extended the period for filing appeal before the Tribunal by two weeks from 31-10-1991, while other terms of the order dated 11-10-1991 remained the same. 6.It appears....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... revision instead of appeal before the CEGAT. The said revision application as stated herein above, was heard by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India and by his order dated 12-10-1992 he was pleased to hold that he did not have jurisdiction and directed the petitioners to move the CEGAT in the matter if they so desire. 7.It appears that on 30-11-1992 Appeal being Appeal No. C/772/92 w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r condonation of delay by the CEGAT cannot be justified on any count. Such application ought to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time. 9.The petitioners submitted that in view of the judgment in the case of Krishnaraj Metal Industries v. Collector of Customs the petitioners were wrongly advised to file revision before the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi. C....