9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay in relation to the Order No. S/4-C-226/76-R, dated 29th of January, 1977 of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said revision petition came to be transferred to the Tribunal as an Appeal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 and is accordingly being disposed of as such. 2. Shri P.G. Gokhale, Advocate, made a serious grievance that the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bombay simply did not appreciate the facts submitted before him and unjustifiably refused to condone delay of about 26 days in filing the appeal before him for which there were solid valid reasons. It shall be in the fitness of things if the relevant portion of the Collector of Customs (Appeal) Order dated 1-6-1977 is brought in focus and for that purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lots on payment of duty and CVD at the rate of ₹ 70/- per kg. as demanded by the Customs Authority under protest and the right to prefer refund claim. Consequently, three separate claims for refund of the excess amount of CVD charged and collected, were made. 5. Some documents were called for by the Assistant Collector of Customs in connection with the appellant s claims, but since there was only one set of original documents, the same could not be submitted for all the three claims. The situation was explained to the Assistant Collector who was further requested to verify the documents which had been submitted to his office in connection with another pending claim. The Assistant Collector, however, without discussing or appreciati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms, Bombay and condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him, direct him to pass fresh orders on merits. If assessee s claim of refund has already been accepted, in relation to release of one of the three lots out of one consignment imported, we see no reason as to why a different view should be taken unless the Order dated 18th of August, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra) is subject matter of review and has not been accepted by the Revenue. 9. Appeal allowed. EDITOR S COMMENTS It is felt that this decision of Bench `D is not correct to the extent that it can condone the delay in late filing of appeal by overlooking the statutory time limit. In this regard, a reference can be made to the var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
