9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 28-4-1993. 2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of valves. The valves in question were despatched from their factory in 1986-1987 to M/s. Kirloskar Ltd. on payment of duty, but were subsequently returned by the customer and were received back in the factory on 20-12-1989 under D-3 intimation and after reconditioning etc. were sent back t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of stay order may be allowed to be returned. 5. Ld. DR drew attention to the order-in-appeal and stated that as mentioned therein, the conditions of the time-limit of one year had already come into force prior to the receipt of goods in the factory, and therefore, the appellants should have taken note of it or sought extension of time since appropriate noting had been made on D-3 itself but t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een received much thereafter, the time-limit of one year could have been taken care of and if necessary a request for extension of time-limit ought to have been made. Therefore, there is a technical breach of the provisions. But at the same time, the Collector and the A.C. are empowered to relax the time limit in appropriate cases, and therefore, such a technical breach itself should not be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
