9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Entry Cash No 2697/13/7/66, dated December 16, 1966. The said three cases arrived at the Bombay Docks by Vessel named S.S. Tannenfels on May 7, 1966 and custom duty had been assessed under ICT No. 71(a) at the rate of 60% + 10% totalling Rs. 30,586.60 and the said duty was duly paid. 3. It appears that when the clearing agents of the petitioner went to take delivery, the three cases were found to be missing. The petitioner by letter dated June 15, 1966 reported to the Enquiry Officer, Allexandra Docks. Bombay that the said three cases are not traceable in the docks. A request was made to appoint a tracer in the docks and to intimate the petitioner as soon as the goods are traced out. The Enquiry Officer by his latter dated June 20, 1966 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved a copy of the order dated June 20, 1967 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay on June 28, 1967. The copy of the order filed on record by the petitioner mentions :- "An Appeal against this order lies to Collector of Customs, Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi/Simla within three months from the date of its despatch shown above." 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal on September 16, 1967 and was received by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi on September 19, 1967. The appeal was returned to the petitioner by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, with the remarks :- "Returned in Original with the remarks that the Appeal against the orders of A.C. Customs, Appraisement Department (Refund Section) lise with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Board of Revenue, New Delhi. The copy filed with the counter-affidavit, however, mentions that the appeal lies to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. I called upon the Counsel for the respondents to produce the original records to show whether the copy filed by the petitioner is a true and correct copy of the order served on the petitioner. The Counsel for the respondents is unable to produce the same. The copy of the order (Annexure `R-1') is also not attested as a true copy by any competent authority. The counter-affidavit also does not say that the copy of the order dated June 20, 1967 filed along with it is the true and correct copy of the original. On these facts, there is no reasonable basis to hold that the copy served o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
