Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.69 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise vs B.R. Metal Industries on 26 March, 1991 cites

Collector Of Customs vs Hindustan Motors Ltd. on 27 August, 1990

A simple perusal of the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay as well as the certificate clearly shows that delay in filing the appeals should have been condoned only upto 23-12-1990 and a reasonable time for the filing of the appeals. In the matter before us, there is a delay of 48 days, for the sake of convenience, taking the overall view, we are of the view that it would have been reasonable to give approximately one week for the filing of the appeals, keeping in view the disturbances in Ahmedabad but with this observation, we are making it very clear that this observation will not be applicable in general, and all the appellants may not start claiming grace of one week for the filing of the appeal. The judgments cited by the learned JDR do not help him. This Bench had passed a very detailed order in the case of Collector of Customs v. Hindustan Motors Ltd., reported in 1991 (51) ELT 400. Paras No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 from the said judgment are reproduced below :-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadur Singh and Ors., reported in 1983 ECR 1556D and also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land and Acquisition v. MST. Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185. Shri Arora stated that since there is bona fide on the part of the appellants, the delay in the filing of the appeal may be condoned and disturbances in the Ahmedabad were sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd on 31 January, 1975

7. This Tribunal had occasion to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodigawa Ltd., reported in 1988 (19) ECR 569 (SC) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. F.G.P., reported in 1988 (38) ELT 712. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Supreme Industries Ltd., reported in 1990 (47) ELT A166 had confirmed the findings of the Tribunal where Tribunal had held that delay in the late filing of the appeal in the Tribunal is not condonable firstly there was no proper application on behalf of the Department for condonation of delay and secondly the reasons for delay as given in the Dy. Collector's letter were not acceptable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 65 - P K Goswami - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1982

In support of his arguments, he referred to the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bahadur Singh and Ors., reported in 1983 ECR 1556D and also referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land and Acquisition v. MST. Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185. Shri Arora stated that since there is bona fide on the part of the appellants, the delay in the filing of the appeal may be condoned and disturbances in the Ahmedabad were sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeals.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 197 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs F.G.P. Limited on 27 October, 1988

7. This Tribunal had occasion to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Yodigawa Ltd., reported in 1988 (19) ECR 569 (SC) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. F.G.P., reported in 1988 (38) ELT 712. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II v. Supreme Industries Ltd., reported in 1990 (47) ELT A166 had confirmed the findings of the Tribunal where Tribunal had held that delay in the late filing of the appeal in the Tribunal is not condonable firstly there was no proper application on behalf of the Department for condonation of delay and secondly the reasons for delay as given in the Dy. Collector's letter were not acceptable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next