9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 74 of the Customs Act was rejected by the Assistant Collector as inadmissible. On appeal, the Appellate Collector confirmed the order passed holding that the rejection was rightly done. 3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri D Silva, appearing for the appellant submitted that their export was after the expiry of two years. They had however made an application to the Board for extension of time, but the Board did not grant extension. He submitted that the Board did not pass any speaking order, and therefore, the appellant could not file an appeal or revision before the Government of India. Further, the provisions then existing did not provide for any appeal or revision against the order passed by the Board. Shri D Silva conceded th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot made within two years from the date of payment of duty on importation. The orders of the authorities below do not suffer from any legal infirmity. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the orders. 6. In the result this appeal fails and the same is rejected. [Order per : K.S. Dilipsinhji, Member (T) ]. 7. - While I entirely agree with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother, the Judicial Member, in finding that the appeal fails and while I also agree with him that the appeal is to be rejected, I cannot refrain from adding this note to the order. It is not my normal practice to say something in addition to the order dictated by my learned brother when I agree with the conclusions. But in the present case I hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de or arbitrary as no such allegations have been made by the present appellant. Hence it has been concluded that there is no scope to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Board. Conversely, the observations are apt to be construed that had there been any allegations or arbitrariness or mala fides, it would have been open to this Tribunal to interfere in the matter. Such a conclusion is not warranted by the provisions of law. Under Section 74(1) all the powers of granting extension in the period of reshipment have been specifically vested in the Board. It cannot, therefore, be proper and legal for this Tribunal to exercise the Board s power in terms of the aforesaid provisions. Besides, only the Board s orders of the type specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
