GOPI KRISHNA AGARWAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
GOPI KRISHNA AGARWAL
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
Click here to view full judgement.
S.L. Peeran, Member (J) -
(1.) IN these applications, the applicant/appellants are seeking condonation of delay in filing these appeals.
(2.) ALL the appeals arise from the same order -in appeal No. 65 to 68 -Allh/89 dt. 11 -9 -1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.
By this order the learned Collector has set aside the orders in original bearing Nos. 15/Cus/87, 16/Cus/87, 17/Cus/87 and 18/Cus/87 all dated 24 -12 -1987 passed by Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad and has remanded the same to him for de novo consideration.
(3.) THE appellant being aggrieved by this order of remand passed by the learned Collector (A) had filed a writ petition No. Nil of 1989 before the High Court of Allahabad.
This Miscellaneous writ petition No. Nil of 1989 dt. 7 -10 -1989 was not accepted by the Allahabad High Court. While rejecting the said writ petition the learned Judges of the High Court has passed the following order:
"Having heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar counsel appearing for the Union of India, we are of opinion that there are two alternatives before the petitioner at the present. The first is to move an application for recalling order before the appellate authority on the ground that he could not appear due to reasons beyond his control. Every authority has ancillary and incidental power to recall an order, if it is satisfied that the absence was for the reasons beyond the control of the applicant. Such an application has not been moved. The petitioner may, if so advised, move now before the appellate authority.
The other alternative is to file an appeal under Section 129A of the Excise Act. (it should have been Customs Act, 1962). For what we have stated above, we do not consider it a fit case for interference." ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.