Posted On by &filed under Judgements.


Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs vs Sadiq Futehally on 11 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 (121) ELT 815 Tri Mumbai


ORDER

Gowri Shankar, Member (T)

1. Each of these applications is filed for condoning the delay of four years in filing the applications under Section 129D(1) of the Act.

2. Application attributes the delay to the fact that these applications are against the common order of the Collector, against which one appeal has already been filed on time.

3. We find that it is settled by the decision of the Larger Bench in CCE v. Azo Dye Chem. & Ors. – 2000 (39) RLT 403 there is no provision for condonation of delay for an application filed under Section 35E(4) under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The provisions of Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129E(4) of the Customs Act are in pari materia and the ratio of the decision would apply to this application. The Tribunal therefore has no powers to condone the delay.

4. The applications are accordingly dismissed. The appeals are consequently dismissed as barred by limitation.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.200 seconds.