9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner is a registered dealer having its head office at Bangalore and it is a hundred per cent export oriented unit. The petitioner purchased certain consignment on high sea sales and moved the same from Chennai Harbour to Delhi. The goods were detained on February 14, 2000 under goods detention order No. 166/99-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement (Central), Chennai. While that being so, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner, dismissed the revision on the ground that the compounding order has not been produced, by his order dated March 28, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the compounding order on April 19, 2002. On that day itself, the petitioner produced it before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner on receiving that certified copy of the compounding order, however rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il 23, 2002 on the ground that the revision made by the petitioner in the reference second cited could not be entertained on the sole ground that he has already dismissed the revision application. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has represented the revision petition along with the certified copy of the compounding order. When the compounding order was very much placed before the authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertainable and the same was communicated to the petitioner by proceedings dated March 28, 2002. Though it has not been stated in explicit manner that the certified copy has been received by the Joint Commissioner, it is the contention of the petitioner that the re-presentation would tantamount to re-presenting the revision along with certified copy, for the absence of which alone the revision h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
