9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trade Notice No. 47/86-C.E. in the same manner in which it has been settled in relation to M/s. Shruti Synthetics Ltd., Udaipur and further, respondents be directed not to compel the petitioners to pay the interest. 2.The facts in brief are that the petitioners Shri Rajasthan Synthetics Ltd., a company registered under the Company Act is carrying the business of manufacturing man-made fibre yarn and other synthetic blended yarn. In the year 1983 the Central Government issued the exemption Notification Nos. 38/93 and 39/83, dated 1-3-1983 exempting the imports of man-made fibres from a part of the customs duty. The petitioners and M/s. Shruti Synthetics Ltd. both imported man-made staple fibre from Bombay Port. The duty was levied on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... post-manufacturing expenses. 3.The parties desiring to settle their cases under the Scheme were required to file declaration owning the liabilities and indicating the amount paid by them on or before 31st December, 1986. The petitioner-company filed the declaration in March, 1987. The application filed by the M/s. Shruti Synthetics on 19-12-1986 was accepted by the Collector of Customs, Jaipur on certain conditions. The petitioners also approached to the Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur and requested to settle the cases pending in the Court in accordance with the Trade Notice dated 28-8-1986. While the said application was pending before the authorities of the department the writ petitions filed by M/s. Shruti Synthetics pending before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven with a view to given opportunity to the petitioner to make representation to the appropriate authorities for waiving of interest under the Amnesty Scheme. The Collector of Customs vide letter dated 2nd February, 1989 decided the matter and informed the petitioners that the petitioner-company was not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme as it did not file the declaration on or before 31st December, 1986. 5.The petitioner-company preferred an application for interim relief before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed by order dated 13-6-1989 with a direction to deposit the amount of interest within a period of 8 weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of interest under communication dated 7-7-1989 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest. The differential amount was paid by the petitioner as per the direction of the High Court. Subsequently the Bombay High Court passed another order dated 16-11-1988 by which recovery of the interest was stayed for a period of six months, in order to enable the petitioner to make representation to the appropriate authority for waiver of interest. The representation was rejected by the Department on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under the Amnesty Scheme as the declaration was submitted beyond the cut of date. The petitioner filed another interim application in the pending appeal being No. 519/1989 which was rejected by the order of the Bombay High Court dated 13-6-1989 with a direction to the petitioner to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
