Unimarine Agencies Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 20 Apr 2006
- Bench
- R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR
Provisions considered
- Customs Act, 1962 ss. 116, 128
- DD of the Customs Act, 1962 s. 129
- Central Excise Act, 1944 s. 35
- Limitation Act, 1963
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. For reasons indicated above, Writ petition deserve admitted. We dismiss the writ petition in limine accordingly. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. (R.M. LODHA,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.
Judgment
By petition, petitioner challenge order-in-original 19th March, passed Deputy Commissioner Customs, 22nd December, 2004 passed Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the revisional authority.
The counsel petitioner submit petitioner challenges order-in-original merits Court period limitation and, therefore, extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court deserves to be invoked. .
The argument appeal us. The petitioner correctness order-in-original 19th March, 2003 filing appeal before Commissioner Customs (Appeals). That appeal preferred petitioner before Commissioner Customs (Appeals) beyond 18 months dispute. Section 128 Customs Act, 1962 3 provides appeal Commissioner (Appeals) passed Officer customs a Commissioner Customs. Proviso appended sub-section (1) Section 128 prescribes limitation filing appeal. The limitation filing appeal (Appeals) empowered 60 days. However, Commissioner condone a period The 30 appellant sufficient cause. perusal Section 128 (1) proviso appended thereto leaves manner Commissioner (Appeals) condone sufficiency extent 30 expiry period limitation. Dealing similar situation, reference Section 35 Central Excise Act, 1944 Sections 29(2) Limitation Act, 1963, 5 Navinon Limited v. Union India & anr., 2005(1) 2005(1) 2005(1) Bom.C.R. Bom.C.R. Bom.C.R. 58, 58 58 appellate authority extend period limitation 30 expiry statutory period 60 beyond statutory period 60 days, 30 Commissioner of Appeals has no power to condone the delay.
Admittedly, instant case, appeal preferred petitioner original beyond 18 months. The Commissioner (Appeals) intent 4 condoning delay. The legislative filing appeal within a particular condonation having restricted 30 expiration statutory period, Court invoke extraordinary jurisdiction nullify statutory provision contained Section
As Supreme Court India, Union India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company, 1996 1996 1996 (84) (84) (84) E.L.T.401, E.L.T.401 E.L.T.401 Articles directing 226 227 clothe High Courts authorities contrary law, particularly the authorities who are creatures of the statute.
For reasons indicated above, Writ petition deserve admitted. We dismiss the writ petition in limine accordingly. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. (R.M. LODHA,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Customs Act, 1962 — ss. 116, 128; DD of the Customs Act, 1962 — s. 129; Central Excise Act, 1944 — s. 35; Limitation Act, 1963.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 20 Apr 2006. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.