TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said consignment the bill of entry for home consumption was submitted and the custom duty was paid on 5th November, 1980 when the said good were with the Customs Authorities in the Dock. The petitioner applied for examination of the goods by the Customs Authorities for determining the damaged or deterioration in the said goods. 4. On 7th November, 1980 the said goods were examined by the Examining Officer, the said Appraiser and Assistant Collector of Customs (Dock) for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of damage to the goods. It was found that the said goods were actually damaged and damage was quantified to the extent of 30%. The said goods were also examined by the Insurance Surveyor and the report of the Surveyor showed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was shown for condonation of delay. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal on 18th July, 1985. 8. The Customs Authorities thereafter filed another application before the Tribunal for review on the plea that there had been some mistakes on their part. The matter was considered by the Tribunal and by another order dated 21st February, 1986 the Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground that the Tribunal having passed an order upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case it was no longer open to the Tribunal to review or revise its order. 9. The respondents thereafter moved a reference application before the Tribunal praying for a reference on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y application filed for such stay. Ultimately the application for condonation of delay, the appeal, the application for review and the reference application had been dismissed one after another by the Tribunal. The matter was not proceeded further. Even after the order was passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application for reference on 10th April, 1986 the respondents did not issue the refund order to the petitioner. It is surprising that the respondents without there being any ground for withholding the refund deprived the petitioner of the use and enjoyment of the said sum of Rs. 2,21,910.30p. since 4th June, 1983 when the order of the Appellate Authority was made. 14. In the case of Dulichand Shreelal v. Collector of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
