TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as time-barred. However, they succeeded in getting an Insurance Survey conducted before the goods were passed out-of-charge by Customs. 3. It was also their contention that at the time of Insurance Survey a Customs Appraiser was present and had signed on the Bill of Entry and indicated therein the shortage which was noticed during Customs examination-cum-Insurance Survey. 4. They had filed, thereafter, a Refund Claim, but the Assistant Collector rejected it as unsubstantiated on the ground of non-application of Public Notice Nos. 276/64 and 71/64. 5. The P.N. No. 276/64 requires a Port Trust Certificate indicating that a proper report regarding the alleged pilferage has been lodged by the Importers/Clearing Agents and the second P.N. req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (5) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 881 (T); (6) 1988 (36) E.L.T. 184 (T); (7) 1984 (17) E.L.T. 425 (T). 9. In the circumstances, he would pray that the appeal may be accepted. 10. The Ld. S.D.R., Shri M.N. Biswas strongly opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel stating that the two Public Notices have been issued by the Customs House with reference to Section 13 only with a view to ensuring its proper implementation. It was, therefore, necessary to strictly comply with these Public Notices and since this was not done, the Assistant Collector was justified in rejecting their claim and the Collector (Appeals) their Appeal. 11. It was his contention that the Port Trust by their office letter dated 1-10-1983 informed that some of the packages were land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground of non-compliance with P.N. No. 71/64 and 276/64 by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals). The appellants have contended that the shortage had been duly endorsed on the reverse of the duplicate Bill of Entry by the Customs Officials before passing of the con signments out of the Customs Control. Both the authorities, however, have not com mented on this aspect of the matter and have not examined the claim on merits at all. 17. I also find that a similar issue had been the subject matter of consideration by this Bench in an earlier case of M/s. Steel Lines in Appeal No. C-74/85-Cal. dated 19-10-1987 in which it was observed, inter alia, that the Department should not have taken too technical a view of th....