9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the claim for refund of payment holding that the goods imported, being of 20" width, do not conform to the requirements for "strips" and therefore they are classifiable only as sheets under Item 63(20A) ICT; the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs rejecting the appeal as barred by time and the order of the Central Government rejecting the revision application. 2. The petitioner importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d vide Notification No. 138-Customs, dated August 25, 1965, cold rolled hoops and strips of stainless steel of 250 mm width or more falling under this item are exempt from the payment of Customs duty as is in excess of 10% ad valorem. 3. In the order dated October 14, 1972 and dispatched on December 2, 1972 rejecting the refund claimed by the petitioner, the only reason given is that the goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in the office on March 23, 1973 i.e., after the expiry of the three months time limit specified under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Collector of Customs then proceeded to record that no reasons have been adduced to show that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the time allowed by the statute. 4. The inference drawn by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee months and for this reason did not make any application for condonation of delay or disclosing any sufficient cause as to why he was prevented from preferring the appeal within the time allowed under Section 128 of the Act. The order of the Appellate Collector of Customs is without affording any opportunity to explain the position as to how the appeal was considered as within time or if not wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
