Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Section 129 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 129A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan vs Ramnath And Ors. on 8 February, 1971
Shri Gujral in support of his arguments relied on State of Rajasthan v. Ramnath and Ors.-AIR 1972 Rajasthan 181 and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr.-(1976) 38 S.T.C. 538.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited ... vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 16 September, 1976
In Hindustan Aeronautics Limited case (supra), the High Court of Orissa rejected the request of the State of Orissa to condone delay of 137 days in filing appeal- delay claimed to have been due to official consultation and correspondence and quashed the order of the Tribunal condoning delay in favour of State of Orissa. The Orissa High Court went on to add that such power is discretionary. When discretion vests in a judicial or quasi-judicial body it has to be exercised in accordance with the well settled principles of justice and not in an arbitrary manner.
Collector Of Central Excise vs Hydraulics Ltd. on 29 August, 1983
6. Opposing Shri Gujral's contention, for the non-applicant Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran argued that sufficient cause within the meaning of the provision was not made out. He further submitted that in another case relating to a Reference application in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Hydraulics Ltd.-1984 (16) E.L.T. 254, the Bench had not condoned the delay of even two days. According to him, the time-limit of six months stipulated by the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Removal of Difficulties Order, 1982 was applicable to a case where in fact an appeal had been filed within the time stipulated in the order because the order was only a transitional provision. The order was not applicable to a case where appeal was filed after expiry of the stipulated time-limit in the order. In this case, the applicant filed appeal only after expiry of the time-limit stipulated in the order and therefore, the applicant cannot take benefit of the provision for extended time-limit of six months. He submitted that on the facts of the case, the two rulings cited by Shri Gujral were not applicable. He prayed for dismissal of the application.
1