9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kataramani, Member (T)]. The facts in this appeal, briefly, are that the appellants, herein, imported through Bombay Customs House in April, 1981 a consignment of synthetic waste. Finding that partially the consignment was damaged, the appellants arranged for a survey report while taking delivery of the goods. After clearance of the goods they filed a claim for refund of duty paid on the dam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are, firstly, the Collector (Appeals) has passed the impugned order without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the appellants as set out in ground (II) of their appeal before the Tribunal. The Collector (Appeals) has also mis-construed the claim of the appellants as a refund claim of duty paid on shortages, whereas the Assistant Collector s order as well as appellants appeal grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 22-8-1981 on record also contains what appears to be acknowledgement of receipt over the rubber stamp of Assistant Collector `E Group. In this context, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kasturi Sons v. Collector of Customs - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 161 regarding the scope of Section 22 of Customs Act, 1962 where damage to goods is claimed is relevant and it will be necessary, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
