The appeal was however rejected on 26 9 1980 and it was observed The order dated 17 6 1979 against which the appeal appears to have been filed companyers the same matter as those companyered by the 5 orders which had been received by the clearing agents in 1978.
This appeal, filed originally as special leave petition but companyverted as appeal, is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by which the Tribunal maintained the order of the Appellate Collector dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant as being without jurisdiction.
Later on, the Assistant Collector passed another order on 17 6 1979 and rejected the claim of the appellant as despite grant of sufficient time the appellant did number produce any evidence in support of the claim that the exported goods were number animal feed.
The appellant, a holder of industrial licence for manufacture of Protein Extender exported Soyabean Protein Concentrate which was treated as animal feed by the Department and the appellant was required to pay customs duty on it.
It was replied on 10 7 1980 and it was mentioned that numberorder was received by it but its Export Manager obtained the order from the Department.
The said order dated 17 6 1979 appears to be redundant and invalid.
On 1 7 1980, it received a companymunication from the Assistant Collector of Customs enquiring the date on which the orders were received by the appellant.
It later on filed an application before the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of customs duty as well as customs cess which according to it was erroneously companylected by the authorities.
Its claim was rejected sometime in 1978.
No one should suffer for the mistake companymitted by the Court.
This order was challenged in further appeal before the Tribunal.
The circumstances in which the appeal was dismissed are slightly peculiar.
Against this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay.
The appellant paid it under protest.
