TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports, one of the items was maida. Maida item was not an excisable one. Hence A.R. 4 procedure was not done. The maida was packed in single white P.P. bags which were purchased by the appellants from the manufacturer after payment of duty. It is the case of the applicant before us that the maida which was exported was packed in P.P. bags had already suffered central excise duty. At the time of export, shipping bill was filed as free shipping bills. This was sought to be changed into duty draw back shipping bills. Hence, an application was filed before the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Ahmedabad on 19-9-1997 (page 54 of the paper book before us). In the enclosures to the said application, the relevant papers including evidence of payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make the co-relation between the HDPE/PP bags purchased on payment of duty and those used for Exports. On receipt of the said letter, a revision application was filed by the applicant before the Joint Secretary sometime in later part of March, 1999 (since TR.6 challan indicates payment of Rs. 1000/- only on 20-3-1999 page 17 of the paper book). The Joint Secretary by his order appears to have disposed of the said Revision application sometime on 26-5-1999 received by the applicants on 9-6-1999, stating as follows : Government has gone through the facts of the case. As per the Section 122 DD of the Customs Act, the Central Government may on the Revision Application of any person aggrieved by any order passed under Section 128A, where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it was not possible to co-relate between HDPE/PP bags purchased on payment of duty and those used for export. 4. The ld. Counsel states that the applicant mistakenly filed the same before the Revisionary authority. 5. Shri Choubey, the ld. departmental representative vehemently argues that the order passed on 29-9-1998 was the appealable order, not the letter dated 5-1-1999. Shri Choubey emphatically states that the said communication having been made to the applicant before us, it must be considered as the appealable order. Therefore, there is no reason for us to excuse the delay. 6. We have considered all the aspects. The communications dated 29-9-1998 and 5-1-1999 had not been signed by the Commissioner but there were enough m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that any person aggrieved by any of the orders or decision passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority can file an appeal to the Tribunal. It is a different case if a decision or order is passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as provided under clause (b) of Sec. 129A. The proviso to sub-clause (1) of Sec. 129A is applicable only in respect of the decision passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). But in the instant case, the decision had been made by the Commissioner of Customs as an Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, appeal may lie to the Tribunal. 8. Be that as it may, in the instant case before us, the applicant when he was aggrieved against the decision conveyed on 5-1-98 took up the matter to the Revision Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. We have considered the entire aspects of the case. It is not as if the entire material was not before the lower authority viz. certificate given by the Range Supdt. regarding payment of duty in respect of HDPE bags which have been used for packing the exported material viz, maida. The case appears to be a very strong but yet in a case of such a strong nature and the amount involved is of Rs. 12 lakhs, the application of condonation of delay does not mention anything about the reason for delay, in our considered view, we cannot accede to the request for excusing the delay. Whenever, any order has been made against a person, it is expected on him to rush to the next forum for redressal of grievance. In this case, even if we take that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presenting the appeal within the period. In each case, therefore, it is necessary to examine the sufficient cause advanced by the appellant. Time and again, the Supreme Court s judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. MST. Katiji and Other [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.)] is cited. Citation is also made of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bhag Singh and Others [1998 (32) E.L.T. 258 (S.C.)]. The Supreme Court had held that the approach of the Court should be liberal. The Supreme Court in another decision reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) (State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra) had held that when examining the reasons for delay, the merits of the case should also be taken into account. 12. If these jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
