9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol. 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. We are also of the opinion that Lindt Export (2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT) is not an authority for the blanket order that in every case where the order achieved finality the Tribunal is bereft of jurisdiction. We also note that in that case the assessee/appellant had approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the CESTAT order after its appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute. The amount to be received by the appellant was not remitted to it within the time prescribed. The RBI in respect of some of the exports extended the time of remittance till 31-8-2002. In these circumstances, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 31-3-2003 demanding why the drawback which the petitioner had previously enjoyed ought not to be withdrawn. It is not again in dispute that between 1-10-2001 and 1-10-2005 the respondent received its export proceeds from its foreign purchaser. The appellant had filed its reply in response to the show cause notice dated 31-3-2003 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, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly drew attention to the disclosure made to the adjudicating authority that the remittances were received at the stage when the show cause notice was pending and no order has been made. Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Parasrampuria v. Commissioner of Customs, (Exports) [2013 (289) E.L.T. 404 (Bom.)]. It was also argued that the appellate authority can, in the interest of justice, exercise its discretion and restore the appeal 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t an authority for the blanket order that in every case where the order achieved finality the Tribunal is bereft of jurisdiction. We also note that in that case the assessee/appellant had approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the CESTAT order after its appeal met with no success. The assessee carried the matter to Supreme Court, which had rejected its claim. Further more, the order was premised upon entirely different set of circumstances - the adjudicating authority in that case had held that the claim itself was bogus. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. Consequently, the order of 19-8-2013 of CESTAT in Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
