9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is aggrieved by an order of the revisional authority i.e. the Joint Secretary, Central Government made on 22.6.1993, in exercise of its power under section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962. By that impugned order the revisional authority set aside the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 27.07.1992. 2. The facts are that the petitioner had imported some seamless steel casing pipes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the duty was paid on 9.12.1986. So the claim drawback under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 50 Ibid, is within the time limit of 2 years. The adjudicating authority did not discuss anything on this ground which is against the principle of natural justice. The matter was also examined in the light of notification No.19-Cus dated 6.2.1965, Board?s instruction letter F.No.40 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpletely ignoring the proviso which enable the CBEC to extend the period having regard to the circumstances of the case. In the pleadings it is urged that the petitioner had in fact sought for extension in terms of the proviso on 7.12.1988. It is argued that in terms of section 74 read with sections 16 and 50, the claim for drawback is within the period of two years from the date of presenting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 51 permitting the re-export which was essential in this case and could be made after verification and inspection of 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
