Admittedly in the present appeals, goods were sent to the bonded warehouse on 3 9 1991 for a period of three months, so the period of bonded warehouse was to expire on 2 12 1991.
Against that order appeal preferred by the assessee before the Collector of Customs Appeals , was allowed and benefit of exemption numberifications was granted on the basis of the Boards circular dated 12 7 1989.
Thereafter on 1st March, 1992, another numberification was issued exempting auxiliary duty.
That application was deemed to have been rejected on the ground that on 21/26 11 1991 the assessee was asked to remove the goods on 18th December, 1991.
It is admitted fact that in April, 1992 final assessment order was passed by the Assistant Collector, Customs Department number granting benefit of the numberifications.
Thereafter on 16th January, 1992 the Government issued a numberification reducing rate of duty.
C/1663/92 B passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, the assessee has preferred these appeals.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgments and orders dated 9th May, 2000 and 10th August, 2000 in Appeal No.
It is the companytention of the assessee that it sought extension of period by filing application on 18th November, 1991.
That appeal was allowed by the Tribunal relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta .
Against that judgment and order passed by the Collector of Customs, the Department preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal.
On 23rd December, 1991, however, the Department asked assessee to clear the goods.
On 21st January, 1992 the appellant filed the bill of entry.
Again, the assessee asked for extension of period for warehousing.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
The appellant did number remove the goods.
