9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory period under the bond. They had made an application for extension on 26-2-90 and 15-3-90. According to the appellants, these applications for extension of bond period was not considered and hence the proceeding to recover duty interest is not valid in the eye of law. On this point, the Revenue has filed para-wise comments and contended that their applications were considered and not accepted and the detention notice dated 28-2-91 was served on them to discharge the duty liability and hence their contention that their application was still pending is not correct. 2. It is further submitted that the appellant had moved the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka against this detention notice and did not succeed. Thereafter, they went before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s after lapse of 14 years does not arise as the request for retention of the goods in warehouse had been rejected and detention order was passed. The same was challenged unsuccessfully by the appellants even before the Apex Court. He submits that their letter for abandoning the goods has no relevance due to the fact that the said abandonment has been done after a lapse of 14 years and much beyond the period of limitation under the statute. 5. Ld. Counsel submits that the party had obtained permission from RBI to re-export the goods on 21-9-2000 and an application was made to the Commissioner of Customs to permit them to re-export on 4-1-2000, therefore, they should have been permitted to re-export the goods. On this also, ld. SDR submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been considered and rejected. The matter had been agitated by the party upto Apex Court against Detention Notice and had not succeeded. Their application before the KVSS was also not accepted. Therefore, their plea that their application is still pending and the judgment rendered in the case of Pradeep Ullal (supra) applies to the facts is not correct. In the case of Pradeep Ullal, the application was still pending and proceedings for recovery of the duty had not been initiated. The facts of the present case indicates that the Revenue had already considered their extension application and not favoured it but instead proceeded to recover the amount by issue of Detention Notice dated 28-2-90 and appellants had not succeeded even before the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
