2014 (6) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on limitation and inferred that the petitioner caused deliberate delay. In the present case the show-cause notice and the order-in-original made in 2009 had proposed recovery of penalty amount of ₹ 60 lakhs and ₹ 75 lakhs. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that it intentionally approached authorities who did not possess jurisdiction does not appear to be justified. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r in refusing to condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits, in the circumstances of the case 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant sold readymade garments to M/s. CIS Exports Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter and claimed the drawback of the duties suffered on inputs used on the exported product; the appellant sought drawback which was disallowed. The respondent also proposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 012. 4. Thereupon the petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 06.09.2012 contending erroneously that a revision was filed before the revisionary authority. This writ petition was dismissed on 06.09.2012. The petitioner highlights that these circumstances led to the delay in preferring the appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order. The Tribunal, as would be appa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X