9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioners, they exported steel chains. The petitioners executed a bond in the form B-1 for Rs. 24,000/- with a cash security of Rs. 1,200/-. The said bond was accepted by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Refunds), Bombay and registered at Serial No. 594/80 on 18-12-1980. According to the petitioners, they produced the necessary documents with the concerned authorities evidencing the fact of actual export of steel chains. On 16th August, 1983, the Superintendent of Central Excise (Refunds) Bond Section, Bombay, issued a show cause notice to the Petitioners informing them that they have not submitted the proof of exportation in respect of the goods cleared without payment of duty under bond for shipment through Bombay under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, by his order dated 18th August, 1984 rejected the same. Against this order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioners were under misconception that the 2nd appeal would lie to the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, West Region Bench, Bombay. Accordingly, they filed appeal to the said Tribunal. However, the said Tribunal vide its order dated 20-2-1985 dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The petitioners thereafter preferred Revision Application to the Government of India on 4-4-1985. Along with this revision application, the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such documents were filed along with the reply to the show cause notice, these documents were already filed within time before the concerned authority and this fact was never disputed at the hearing. The learned Counsel also drew my attention to the order of the Assistant Collector in which reference of this fact is made. If this be so, Counsel contends, that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Appellate Collector are illegal and must be quashed and set aside. 5. Ordinarily, after condoning the delay I would have sent the matter back to the Revisional Authority for considering the case on merits. Respondents although served and represented by the Counsel did not choose to file any return. I see no reason why t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
