TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the order to the appellant. The appeal was, however, received in the registry (West Regional Bench, Bombay) of the Tribunal on 9-2-1989. Thus, there has been a delay of 1 month 24 days. In terms of sub-section (5) of the said section of the Customs Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed after the expiry of the stipulated period of 3 months if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause. The present application is for condonation of the delay in filing the instant appeal. 2. The ground urged in the application reads as follows :- "There is some delay in filing the appeal as the original records were not readily available and some time was lapsed (sic) in reconstructing the file on the basis of duplicate set of documents cal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nished the copies of two triplicate Bills of Entry and the relative invoices. The Collector (Appeals) observed in his order dated 31-10-1985 that though even at the appeal stage the importers had not produced the copies of the correspondence, they had produced the customs attested invoice and duty bill under which the short-shipped goods were imported and cleared along with other goods. This invoice indicated that the short supplied goods were supplied on no-charge basis. The other particulars in the subsequent invoice agreed with those in the original invoice. In view of these circumstances, the Assistant Collector's order rejecting the claim as unsubstantiated for non-production of correspondence was set aside and the case was remanded to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondents filed an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) on 12th January, 1988. Along with the appeal, several documents were forwarded. Among them were the copies of Orders-in-Original, the two Bills of Entry and the two invoices. The appeal was disposed of by the Collector (Appeals) by his order issued on 1-9-88. The Collector (Appeals) observed that in the order dated 31-10-1985 the Collector (Appeals) had observed that the short-shipped goods had been supplied on a no-charge basis and the matter had been remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo proceedings. The lower authority had no valid reason to reject the refund claim of the respondents on a new ground that the shortage was noticed in the respondents' premises. The Assistant ....