9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was moved before the Tribunal to have the appeal restored. It is evident that the receipt of remittances and more importantly the extension of time were factors entirely beyond the appellant’s control. Undoubtedly, the order dated 2-1-2007 passed by the Tribunal achieved finality; at the same time we are of the opinion that in the facts of the case the Tribunal did not cease to have any discretion in the matter and having taken into account these facts could have restored the appeal given that the post facto approval in respect of almost 90% of the amount in question was received in 2013. Decision in the case of Lindt Export [2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT] distinguished - appeal restored - decided in favor of assessee. - Cus. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant received its export proceeds from its foreign purchaser. The appellant had filed its reply in response to the show cause notice dated 31-12-2003, wherein it was pointed out that the RBI was requested to seek further extension of time to fulfil the EOUC commitments. The RBI s clearance, unfortunately, was not forthcoming. In this background of the facts, the Commissioner made his order on 9-11-2005 directing the recovery of the amount i.e. ₹ 17,97,768/- along with interest. 6. The appellant approached the CESTAT on 1-6-2006. It also applied for suspension of the requirement of pre-depositing the disputed amount. The Tribunal on 13-11-2006 directed the appellant to deposit ₹ 4 lakhs as a condition for hearing its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal wherever it feels that the justice of the case so requires. 9. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that this Court ought not to interfere and argued that no substantial question arises for consideration. She places reliance on the decision in Commissioner of Customs v. M/s. Lindt Export, CUS AA No. 39-41/2011 decided on 27-9-2011 [2012 (278) E.L.T. 587 (Del.) = 2012 (28) S.T.R. 216 (Del.)]. It was argued that in such circumstances when the order of the CESTAT attains finality under various provisions of the Customs Act, this Court ought not to interfere with such consequences. Learned counsel also relied upon Section 129B. 10. As is evident from the above narration, there is no dispute about the appellant s substantial c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
