TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (9) TMI 114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bombay Agents of the 1st petitioners. 2. The steamer s.s. Helenic Ideal arrived in Port of Bombay in about November 1972 loaded with bales of rags and garments. The imported bales of rags and garments were governed by IGM No. 818 dated November 18,.1972 and they were covered by Item Nos. 50, 89, 91, 27, 28 and 26. The petitioners had landed the entire cargo at the Bombay Port Trust Docks but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 89, 91, 27 and 28 and the Deputy Collector of Customs by his order dated February 11, 1976 imposed a penalty.. of Rs. 25,522.50 in respect of Item No. 26. The Assistant Collector held that the claim of the petitioners that the short landed goods were landed in loose condition was not supported by any documentary evidence. 4. The petitioners thereafter addressed a letter to the Bombay Port Trust ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lector of Customs, Bombay. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was time-barred and the order of the Appellate Collector dated October 30, 1976 was confirmed in revision preferred by the petitioners before the Government of India. The revisional order was passed on February 5, 1977 and these orders are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty and the orders are without any jurisdiction. The Appellate Collector was clearly in error in taking a technical view and dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. The orders under challenge, in these circumstances, cannot be sustained and the petition must succeed. 7. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector on February 11, 1976 and that....