9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S. Bhatnagar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. There is a delay of 17 days in filing of the 4 appeals. The Counsel for the appellants states that the delay was due to the time by taken by them for receipt of the case records from the previous Counsel who were prosecuting the case before the adjudicating and the first appellate authorities (M/s. Gagrat Co., Mumbai). The records were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the original authority confirmed the demands of Customs duty on raw materials imported by the appellants and cleared free of duty under the DEPB Scheme. The imports were made under DEPB licence/scrips purchased from the market. The necessary release advices issued against such scrips were also produced by the appellants at the time of clearance of the imported material. The Department, later o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndence between the DGFT and the Customs Department. A request in this behalf was made to the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeals preferred by the appellants against the orders of the original authority. The request, however, was not heeded. Counsel prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in these facts and circumstances. However, fairly enough, she points out that, in similar matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not confer any benefit on them. It is true that DGFT s correspondence with the Customs authorities was not made available to the appellants. There is a presumption in law that public proceedings are taken always in a regular and lawful manner. This presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable. Any rebuttal is possible only when the official document is shown to the party. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
