TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (6) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....power crane for unloading the raw materials from bulk carriers. The said system was to have a capacity of 600 Tonnes Per Hour (TPH). It was imperative that along with the grab buckets, the system would include a track loader to act as a bulldozer to collect the materials concerned. The petitioner had filled in the necessary quotation as per the advertisement of FEDO on 18th February, 1982. The quotation given by the petitioner was accepted by FEDO. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the import licence. The licence issued had a specific clause with respect to the pay loader. However, that clause was cancelled with a rubber stamp by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (JCCI). In view of this deficiency in the said import li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t did not happen. Therefore, the Petitioner got the pay loader released by paying the redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on 27th May, 1986. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) against the order-in-original passed by Respondent No. 1. That appeal came to be rejected on the ground that there was delay in preferring the same. The order of the CEGAT dated 25th August, 1987 is annexed to the Petition as Exhibit J. 6.It is at that stage that this Petition was filed in November, 1987. However, the Petition, as it was initially filed, challenged only the order-in -original dated 13th August, 1985. Subsequently it was amended to include the challenge to this order of CEGAT a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the particular entry and if that was so, the petitioner was entitled to import the item under the licence without any difficulty. Mr. Shroff submitted that, in any case, the submissions required to be considered. 7.Mr. Shroff then submitted that the other submission of the Petitioner was that the pay loader was a component of the system and this submission had been rejected by the Authority which passed the order-in-original. On this also the Petitioner out to have been heard before the CEGAT and the Appeal before the CEGAT was in nature of the First Appeal. 8.Mr. Master, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, submitted that the Appeal had to be preferred within three months as required under Section 129A(3) of the....