9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. M/s. Lindt Exports and M/s. High Tech Engineers, proprietorship concerns of Shri Rajeev Verma were engaged in the export of readymade garments, home furnishing items, shoes, sweaters, leather bags etc. during the period 1998-99 to 2003-04 to Russia and were getting the export proceeds under the Re-payment of State Credit Scheme rather than in convertible foreign exchange scheme. Such realization of export proceeds was permissible only for export to Russia. Revenue made out a case that the consignees of the export goods were non-existent and the goods never reached Russia but were diverted from ports in Finland for sale in other countries. Since the export proceeds were not realize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon. Court declined to interfere in the matter [2011 (269) E.L.T. 53 (Del.)]. 5. Since the Appellants did not make pre-deposit as ordered in order dated 29-12-2006 the three appeals filed by these Appellants were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26-3-2007. 6. On 25th May 2011, M/s. Lindt Exports remitted an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores to Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tuglakabad towards this due and thereafter the three appellants filed restoration applications for restoring the original appeals. 7. The prayer on behalf of the Appellants is that as a person of small means Shri Rajeev Verma found it extremely difficult to raise 2.5 crores and the delay has happened. Finally the brother of Shri Rajeev Verma based in Russia suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal) (ii) Shree Sansad Textile Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2010 (261) E.L.T. 998 (iii) Dinesh International Ltd. v. UOI - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 321 10. Considered arguments on both sides. 11. The restoration application have been filed almost four years after dismissal of the Appeal. Routine condonation of such default for long periods can render the stay orders passed by Tribunal and Higher Judicial forums meaningless and hence such leniency has to be shown with lot of circumspection. 12. The Tribunal during the hearing for stay petitions in this case was of the prima facie view that demand of excess drawback claimed by overvaluation is prima facie maintainable and not the demand of drawback for the reason that goods did not reach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
