2001 (9) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... swedes leather and burnish leather. In the year 1993, the petitioner firm exported finished leather to foreign countries. In terms of the notification of the Customs Department, the petitioner firm was entitled to drawback and therefore, it filed 15 drawback claims. These claims were rejected by the third respondent. More than 200 such appeals were filed in respect of drawback for export of finished leather. The appellate authority under the drawback system remanded one set of appeals for fresh consideration and in another set of appeals, confirmed the order of the original authority. Aggrieved by the above order of the appellate authority made in Appeal Nos. M/CUS/702-745/95, dated 28-7-95, the other exporters filed revision petitions bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner firm also, appeals would have been preferred. Only when the petitioner came to know that the appeals were not preferred, the petitioner filed appeals with a petition for condonation of delay. The learned Counsel submitted that this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ample power to condone the delay, in the event this Court is satisfied over the reason given by the petitioner for not preferring the appeals in time. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that in view of the reasons adduced for not preferring the appeals, the delay may be condoned and the matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. 3. Heard the learned Additional Central Gov....