1988 (2) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Exhibit 'N' an appeal was preferred to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). Pending appeal, an application was made for stay of the above order. Earlier, the said application was rejected ex-parte. On grievance being made regarding want of hearing, the said application was fixed for hearing. At the hearing the Collector in his presently impugned order observed that though a letter was sent (by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Director was expected to reply thereto to the Collector. For the delay on the part of the Director, Research and Development Division, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, it was not proper to penalise the petitioners. The Collector should have sent a reminder to the Director to expedite his reply. And after receiving a categorical reply, one way or the other, to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, to expeditiously send categorical reply to the Collector's letter of 12th May 1987, Exhibit Q. After receiving reply accordingly, the Collector should proceed, after notice to the petitioner, to hear their appeal aforesaid on merits and in accordance with law. (d) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X