9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard finally for disposal. 5. The appellant exported ready-made garments under 35 shipping bills sometime in the year 1999 in terms of the duty drawback scheme and received drawback of Rs. 36,04,057/-. This was under the scheme which permitted it to drawback the duty, provided the export proceeds were received within the prescribed time i.e. within a time period of six months. The appellant had apparently exported the goods on this score there is no dispute. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the condition imposed by its previous order were not complied with, which resulted in a valid dismissal order and that the appellant had approached the CESTAT after an inordinate dely. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant besides reiterating the grounds urged in support of the appeal, submitted that the inability of the appellant to comply with the condition prescribed was, under the circumstances, entirely beyond its control. Learned counsel pointedly 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant'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. We are also of the opinion that Lindt Export (supra) 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 met with no succ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
