9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icants on 19-6-1992. When this application had come up for hearing on 12-8-1992 it was pointed out that reference application was not duly signed by the concerned party as prescribed under Rule 8 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. Rule 8 read with Rule 3 specifies that an application under sub-section (1) of Section 130 requiring the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law shall be made in C.A. 6 and it must be duly signed by the person as specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. Since this reference application was filed by an Advocate who is not a concerned person as specified under the rules, Shri Rajesh Jain submitted that by mistake he has filed reference application and party s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r defective appeal. On merits he urged that Additional Collector of Customs, in his Order No. 2/91(A), dated 28-8-1990 did not doubt the bona fide of the applicants but, however, allowed re-export of the consignment on payment of redemption fine. But in appeal. Tribunal allowed the applicants to re-export the consignment without payment of fine but ordered confiscation of goods prior to re-export subject to payment of fine. Since Tribunal has gone beyond the issue involved in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order, following questions are required to be referred : - (1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing altogether a different order and that too beyond the Show Cause Notice, as well as the impugned order? (2) C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condoning delay in filing reference application. On merits, he argued that no question of law is involved in this case to refer the matter to the High Court. Since the Tribunal had considered the issue following the ratio of the earlier decision in the case of M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. as can be seen from the order. Further the Tribunal did not go beyond the jurisdiction to decide the matter but modified the order passed by the Additional Collector allowing the appellants to redeem goods on payment of redemption fine to re-export it. 4. There is some force in the argument advanced by the Departmental Representative that delay in filing the reference application was not properly explained and it was not filed within 30 days from the date wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11(d) of the Customs Act. He allowed importer to re-export goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/-. In appeal, Tribunal while following the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Goodyear India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Delhi as per Order No. A/32/90-NRB, dated 27-12-1990 modified the order of the Additional Collector holding that the goods are confiscated but the appellants are entitled to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 35,000/-. In fact, on this issue the applicants have filed an application for rectification of mistake and the same was rejected by the Tribunal as per Miscellaneous Order No. 254/1992-NRB, dated 12-8-1992 on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from the record. On the similar issue, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
