9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (7) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of rubber tyres. For the purpose of such manufacture it imports insoluble sulphur under the trade name 'crystex N-Insoluble Sulphur' (hereinafter referred to as the said product) in bulk quantities. Under a notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue Insurance) being Notification No. 120-Customs, dated 20th August, 1965, sulphur including the said product was stated to be exempt from duty under Indian Customs Tariff. 3. In respect of a particular consignment of the said product imported by the petitioner and under Bill of Entry No. 894 and D.I. 929, dated the 20th and 21st November, 1969 respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the respondent No. 3 was empowered to revise any orders passed by officer subordinate to him under the Customs Act, 1962 except appellate orders passed under section 128 of the said Act. The petitioner's grievance is that the Collector of Customs wrongly and without jurisdiction forwarded the same to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, the respondent No. 2 to be dealt with as an appeal under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. By his order dated the 17th April, 1973 the respondent No. 2 rejected the said application holding that the same had been filled after the expiry of the time prescribed for appeals under section 128 of the said Act. 4. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner applied for a further revision to the Joi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the petition. An affidavit affirmed by the Finance Manager of the petitioner on 27th November, 1978 has been filed in reply thereto. On consideration of the relevant sections of the Customs Act and in the facts of the instant case, it appears to me that the respondents have no answer to the Rule. It is undisputed that the petitioner filed an application for revision under section 130 of the Customs Act. The respondent Nos. 2 3 had no jurisdiction or authority to treat the same as an appeal under section 128 of the Act and deal with the same, as an appeal. 8. For the reasons above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this application. The Appellate Collector of Customs in the impugned order dated the 30th March, 1974 has found c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
