1997 (3) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 28-4-1993. 2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of valves. The valves in question were despatched from their factory in 1986-1987 to M/s. Kirloskar Ltd. on payment of duty, but were subsequently returned by the customer and were received back in the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with all the provisions, any further duty should not be demanded and the amount deposited at the time of stay order may be allowed to be returned. 5. Ld. DR drew attention to the order-in-appeal and stated that as mentioned therein, the conditions of the time-limit of one year had already come into force prior to the receipt of goods in the factory, and therefore, the appellants should ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re correct in pointing out that once Notification No. 21/89 had come into force on 10-5-1989 and the goods had been received much thereafter, the time-limit of one year could have been taken care of and if necessary a request for extension of time-limit ought to have been made. Therefore, there is a technical breach of the provisions. But at the same time, the Collector and the A.C. are empowered ....