TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it is a hundred per cent export oriented unit. The petitioner purchased certain consignment on high sea sales and moved the same from Chennai Harbour to Delhi. The goods were detained on February 14, 2000 under goods detention order No. 166/99-2000 by the Assistant Commissioner, Enforcement (Central), Chennai. While that being so, in order to get the goods released, the petitioner approached the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order has not been produced, by his order dated March 28, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a certified copy of the compounding order on April 19, 2002. On that day itself, the petitioner produced it before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner on receiving that certified copy of the compounding order, however rejected to entertain the revision on the ground that he has already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner in the reference second cited could not be entertained on the sole ground that he has already dismissed the revision application. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has represented the revision petition along with the certified copy of the compounding order. When the compounding order was very much placed before the authority, he could have very well taken into consideration the compou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner by proceedings dated March 28, 2002. Though it has not been stated in explicit manner that the certified copy has been received by the Joint Commissioner, it is the contention of the petitioner that the re-presentation would tantamount to re-presenting the revision along with certified copy, for the absence of which alone the revision has been dismissed. Taking into consideration the facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
