Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Pijush Kanti Nath, Bikash Mondal, ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), ... on 4 October, 2001
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. All the Miscellaneous Applications are for condoning the delay of about one month in filing the present appeals.
2. The appellants' case is that the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.1.2001 was issued on 2.4.2001 and received by the applicants/appellants on and around 9.4.2001 and was handed over by all of them to one Advocate, Smt. Sangita Sengupta for the purpose of filing of their appeals before the Tribunal. However, the appeals were not prepared by the said Advocate and on enquiry by the end of July, 2001, it came to their notice the appeals have not been filed. Thereafter, the applicants'/appellants took away all the papers from the said Advocate and filed the appeals thereafter. It is the applicants/appellants submission that the delay had been caused on account of failure on the part of the Advocate and there was no lapse on their part. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the applicants has also referred to the affidavit given by the said Advocate, Shrimati Sangita Sengupta disclosing that the appeal-papers were handed over to her, but were misplaced in her Chamber and could be traced on the persuasion of the persons only towards the end of July, 2001. The papers were, thereafter, returned to the applicants/appellants. She has also expressed his regret in the said affidavit.
3. Shri D.K. Bhowmick, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue opposes the condonation of delay, and submits that the applicants/appellants should have been more vigilant in pursuing their appeals.
4. In a rejoinder, Shri Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the applicants submits that the applicants/appellants are illiterate villagers and after having handed over the papers to their Advocate, Smt. Sengupta, were under the impression that their case would be taken care of by the Advocate.
5. After going through the affidavit of Smt. Sengupta, learned Advocate, I find that the reason for not filing the appeals by her is misplacement of the appeal-papers in her Chamber. It is not understood as to how the huge bundle of ten appeals could be misplaced in the Advocate's Chamber and appeals not filed within time, if the same were handed over to her in the third week of April, 2001, disclosed by her in her affidavit. It reflects upon the sad state of affairs. Even after the expiry of limitation period, she did not bother to file the appeals and instead, returned the papers to the applicants/appellants. to say the least, this reflects upon the conduct of the Advocate. However, inasmuch as there is nothing contrary on record to show otherwise that the delay has not occurred at the hands of the Advocate, and keeping in view that the applicants/appellants are villagers who are not usually aware of the legal intricacies, I condone the delay in filing the present appeals and allow the Miscellaneous Applications.
Dictated in the open court.