Bombay High Court High Court

Pravin Mansukhlal Mehta vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 January, 1988

Bombay High Court
Pravin Mansukhlal Mehta vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 January, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988 (14) ECR 569 Bombay
Author: Kudukar
Bench: Kudukar


JUDGMENT

Kudukar, J.

1. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners solely on the ground that the same was tiled beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The appellate Authority further held that the petitioners have not filed any application for condonation of delay and, therefore, the question of delay being condoned would not arise. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is needless to mention that the Appellate Authority has not considered the claim of the petitioners on merits.

3. Mr. Bulchunduni, the learned Counsel for the Respondents with his habitual fairness states that the impugned order cannot be supported. It is needless to emphasise that under Section 128 of the Customs Act, the period of limitation will commence against the party who has suffered the order only from the date of receipt of the order. It is not disputed before me that from the date of receipt of the order, the appeal filed by the petitioner would be in time. Dr.. Kaniawalu in support of this petition, drew my attention to various judgments of this Court as well as of various other High Courts to contend that dale of receipt of the order is the starting point of limitation. It is needless to refer to any of these authorities since the point is not disputed before me. The impugned order, in my opinion, is clearly illegal and has to he quashed and set aside, ft is ordered that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) shall treat the appeal filed by the petitioners as having been filed within time and he shall dispose of the said appeal on merits.

4. In the result, the impugned order dated 11th September, 1986 at Exhibit ‘F’ passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law. Rule is accordingly made absolute with costs.

5. Mr. Bulchandani states that the Appellate Authority will dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority is accordingly directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate on or before 29th February 1988.