9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The captioned appeals invoice cases of identical facts. All these appeals have been filed with a delay of 59 days. All the applications for condonation of delay arise before me for decision. The impugned orders affirmed rejection of claim for refund of each of the importers by the original authority. The details of the Orders-in-Appeal and the amounts involved are as follows : S. No. Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) vacated the order of confiscation and penalty. The appellants applied for consequential relief. The original authority rejected the claim for refund on the ground that the order which had allowed relief to the importer had been appealed against before the Tribunal; the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. Mech & Tech had laid down a ratio consistent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 59 days. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned JDR for the Revenue. 3. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case I find that on import of the secondhand photocopiers the original authority had ordered confiscation of the consignment, offered option for redemption on payment of fine and had also imposed penalty. The appellants successfully co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were under a bona fide belief that no appeal was required to be filed against the impugned orders is not acceptable. Moreover, I do not understand how the appellants could have entertained a bona fide belief that no appeal was required to be filed against the order rejecting the refund claim. In the circumstances I reject the applications for condonation of delay in each of the above cases. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
