9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : K.S.Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay issued on 25-9-1987 by which he had rejected their appeal against the order dated 15-4-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Group 'C', Bombay Customs House by which he had demanded differential duty of Rs. 2,53,683.41 on a consignment of F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1987, applied to the Assistant Collector for extension of the bond by a further period upto 10-8-1987. The Asstf. Collector passed an order on 15-4-1987 rejecting their application for extension and ordered the enforcement of the bond. The appeal against the Asstt. Collector's order was also rejected by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the notification does not provide for the extension ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th reference to the Collector (Appeals)'s order that in terms of the bond, the Assistant Collector did have the discretion to grant extension and that further the notification itself does not prescribe any time limit for producing the end-use certificate. The learned counsel, therefore, urged that the order demanding differential duty was not correct in law. The learned Departmental Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authority was also available. In this context, we also note the observation of this Bench in its Order No. 43/1989-C dated 8-3-1989 on the appellant's stay application while granting stay, that in similar matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that technicalities should not deprive the assessee of the legitimate concession given by the Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
