9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs, Bombay, by his Order dated 30-7-1979 ordered confiscation of 81.960 M/T of M.T.M.S. Round bars valued at Rs. 2,12,009/-, but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 28,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Oberoi Exports, the importers and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. By impugned order the Board rejected the appeal holding "the normal statutory time limit for filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 is three months from the date of the communication of the order to be appealed against, as laid down under sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposition Shri Jagat relied upon a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1981 E.L.T. 920 (Bom.) New Camy Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others. 4. Shri Pal appearing for the Collector however contended that the order challenged before the Central Government in the revision application which stood transferred to the Tribunal is an order of the Board and the Addl. Collector's order had merged with the Board's order and, therefore, that order no more exist and as such the appellant cannot be allowed to challenge the Addl. Collector's order. Shri Pal also submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Addl. Collector or the Board. He urged that the contention of the learned advocate that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it could be said that the Addl. Collector's order was erroneous. But then all erroneous orders cannot be termed as orders passed without jurisdiction. If the view taken by the Addl. Collector was erroneous a remedy of appeal is provided to the appellant herein and as a matter of fact he had availed of the said remedy, but not within the condonable period of limitation. In the circumstances we are unable to accept Shri Jagat's contention that the order passed by the Addl. Collector was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal on ground of limitation. The other contention urged by Shri Jagat was when the proper officer had made an order for clearance the collector cannot issue a show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
