TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (4) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing on 11-2-1991 and reiterated the submissions made in the revision application. As there was doubt as to whether their case pertains to short-landing or falls under Section 13 and/or 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri D.N. Mehta, Advocate undertook to submit detailed submissions and case law on the subject. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the applicants filed a refund claim with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment have carefully gone through the case records and the submissions made by the applicant during the course of personal hearing and in the note dated 5-3-1991 submitted subsequently. The said note was required to be submitted because prima facie the case seemed to be one which could fall either under Section 13 of Customs Act, 1962 (dealing with pilferage of goods after unloading thereof) or S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act or Section 116 (dealing with short-landing of goods). But, in case it is held that there was no short-landing Government cannot grant any other relief say under Section 13 or 23 ibid for the simple reason that it does not have jurisdiction. This case seems to be of that type as discussed below and applicants may have to again approach CEGAT if permissible. 4. The Out-Turn Report of the Port T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lp to them. Thus in case of Embarkation Headquarters v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1985 (20) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.) = 1985 (5) ETR 119 the short-shipment had been accepted by production of evidence from suppliers before clearance of the consignment itself. In the case of A.V. Bhanojirow, Garuda Pattab-hiramyya & Co. v. Additional Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam -1990 (45) E.L.T. 574 (Tri.) = 1990....