9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te also particularly when the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is situated in the main Custom House itself in Kolkata where the office of the applicant is also located. Thus in absence of any specific date given by applicant, it can be assumed that the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-6-2015 was received by the applicant on 30-6-2015 itself and accordingly the revision application dated 21-10-2015 is filed beyond three months from the receipt of the Order-in-Appeal. Even if the Order-in-Appeal may have been received a few days after 30-6-2015 still the revision application is filed beyond three months. The revision application is also not found maintainable on merit also as the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is entirely based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision application has been filed mainly on the ground that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that the re-exported goods were new only and the lapse of non-declaration of the goods not having been used after their importation is only procedural one. 3. Hearing in this case was held on 22-5-2018 and it was availed by Sh. Subrato Mukherjee, Assistant Commissioner (Drawback), Kolkata Custom Houses, on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision already pleaded in their revision application. On behalf of the respondent Sh. Nand Kishore Kothari, CA, appeared for personal hearing and reiterated the reasons for quashing the revision application of the applicant s already given in their written submissions dated 22-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within 3 months, can allow the presentation of the application within further extended period of 3 months. But despite of delayed filing of revision application, no application for condonation of delay has been filed along with the application and accordingly it is liable for rejection as time-barred. 5. Besides above, the revision application is also not found maintainable on merit also as the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs is entirely based on an assumption that the re-exported goods had been used after importation thereof because the respondent had not declared that they had not used the same prior to re-export. But this conclusion is not corrobora ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
