9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion that the petitioner's contentions are not substantial - The court notices that even though the petitioner asserts in this writ petition that an application for extension of time was made under proviso to section 74(1), nevertheless no copy of such application has been filed; such assertion was not apparently made before the revisional authority - In any case, there is no order extending the time beyond two years - The Court finds no infirmity with the order of the revisional authority – Decided against assesse. - W.P.(C) 2730/1996 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2014 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. R.V.EASWAR, JJ. Mr. Satish Kumar, Sr. standing counsel JUDGEMENT 1. None for the petitioner. We have considered the pleading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The matter was also examined in the light of notification No.19-Cus dated 6.2.1965, Board?s instruction letter F.No.40/48/63-Cus IV dated 10.12.1963 and a departmental letter F.No.S34M-115/91 DBK dated 9.9.1991 clarifying the determination of date of export for the purposes of granting drawback. But the aforesaid notification and the instructions did not clarify anything regarding entering the goods for export for filing drawback claim as referred under section 74 and under section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962. The ground of rejection being expiry of two years the order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed. Asstt. Collector, Drawback may sanction drawback as per the Customs Act, 1962, and the Drawback Rules. 3. The petitioner s gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the documents (this is also clear from the reference of section 51 under section 74) was given on 22.12.1988, which is beyond two years from 9.12.1986. In view of this, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's contentions are not substantial. The court notices that even though the petitioner asserts in this writ petition that an application for extension of time was made under proviso to section 74(1), nevertheless no copy of such application has been filed; such assertion was not apparently made before the revisional authority. In any case, there is no order extending the time beyond two years. In these circumstances the Court finds no infirmity with the order of the revisional authority. The writ petition is consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
