2010 (2) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The petitioner a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the business of export of iron ore fines had filed shipping bill No. 21 dated 29-5-2007 before the 1st respondent for export of 10,000 MTs of iron ore fines. 3. Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the export duty on iron ore and concentrates is specified at Rs. 300/- per MT. However, the Central Government issued a notification dated 3-5-2007 by way of an exemption in terms whereof iron ore fines of Fe content of 62% and below is subjected to export duty of Rs. 50/- per MT as against the tariff rate of Rs. 300/- per MT. An inspection agency namely M/s. Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd., had certified the FE content in the iron ore fines exported by the peti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....test report and initiated a process to encash the Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. By an interim order dated 11-10-2007 in W. P. No. 21977 of 2007 filed by the petitioner this Court restrained the 1st respondent from enabling the Bank guarantee, until further orders. The writ petition was however disposed of by the order dated 3-3-2008 relegating the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent, who, eventually passed Order-in-Appeal No. 33 of 2008 (V-II)-CUS., dated 13-6-2008 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner while refusing the plea of the petitioner to keep the appeal pending till the report of the re-test by the C.R.L. is obtained. The petitioner received the report of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the 2nd respondent dated 13-6-2008 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Though the reasons set out by the petitioner for seeking condonation of the delay of 146 days in preferring the appeal do not appear to be substantial, we are of the view that having regard to the petitioner having on the merits of the appeal before the CESTAT, an eminently arguable case and the delay not being inordinate, are of the opinion that discretion ought to have been exercised by the CESTAT, for condonation of delay on reasonable terms. 8. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Rajasekar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, we consider it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to allow the w....