Jain Spinners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 1996.
(Arising from the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-1995 of the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E/2381 of 1993-D)
(Arising from the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-1995 of the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E/2381 of 1993-D)
Petitioner: Jain Spinners Ltd.
Respondent: Collector of Central Excise
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3829 of 1996.
(Arising from the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-1995 of the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E/2381 of 1993-D)
(Arising from the Judgment and Order dated 19-10-1995 of the Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.No. E/2381 of 1993-D)
Judges: J.S. VERMA, C.J. & B.N. KIRPAL, J.
Date of Judgment: Dec 05, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocate (Mr R. Santhanam, Mr. P. Venugopal, Mr. K. J. John and Ms. Manju Mishra, Advocate, with him) for the Appellant;
G. Venkatesh Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Limitation Act 1963 – Section 5 – Orderes dated 13.4.92 served on 20.4.92 – Certified copy applied on 9.5.92 – Appeal filed on 18.2.93 – Copy obtained on 14.10.93. Held that appeal filed before collector was time barred and was rightly Dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
VERMA, C.J.
1. In the present case the fact that certified copy of the order dated 13-1992 passed by the Assistant Collector was applied by the appellant on 9-5-1992 and was abtained on 14-10-1993 after the appeal had been filled on 18-2-1993, is of no consequence. As mentioned in the Tribunal’s order it was not in dispute that the order dated 3-4-1992 was served upon the appellants herein on 20-4-1992
by delivery of the same to the counsel for the appellant in the High Court. That being so the appellants cannot claim the benefit of the exclusion of the time taken for obtaining a certified copy thereafter. The appeal filed to the Collector by the appellant filed to the Collector by the appellant was, therefore, rightly dismissed as time-barred on 19-10-1995. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
1. In the present case the fact that certified copy of the order dated 13-1992 passed by the Assistant Collector was applied by the appellant on 9-5-1992 and was abtained on 14-10-1993 after the appeal had been filled on 18-2-1993, is of no consequence. As mentioned in the Tribunal’s order it was not in dispute that the order dated 3-4-1992 was served upon the appellants herein on 20-4-1992
by delivery of the same to the counsel for the appellant in the High Court. That being so the appellants cannot claim the benefit of the exclusion of the time taken for obtaining a certified copy thereafter. The appeal filed to the Collector by the appellant filed to the Collector by the appellant was, therefore, rightly dismissed as time-barred on 19-10-1995. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
