9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l is time-barred. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that against the Order-in-Orginal No. V-1B(2-1) 83, dated 15-9-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise an appeal was filed by the respondents before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. However, he also observed that this Order of him would not in any way affect the jurisdiction of Collector of Central Excise from taking appropriate steps open to him under the statute. This order was passed on 14-4-1987 and not on 15-4-1987 as stated in the Memo of Appeal before us. Against this order of the Collector of Central Excise (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide his order dated 14-4-1987. On receipt of this reply the Collector of Central Excise came to know about the passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, a request was made to the said Advocate Shri S.B. Vakil for supplying the copy of the impugned order, who in turn forwarded the copy of the same under his covering letter dated 20-2-1989. On receipt of this copy immediate telex dated 24-2-1989 was sent to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay who has passed the impugned order requesting him to send the certified copy of the order-in-appeal. Acting on this telex request the concerned Collector (Appeals) forwarded the certified copy of the impugned order under his covering letter dated 4-4-1989. It was received in the office of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal by the Revenue was not condoned observing that there was no evidence to show that the Additional Collector did not receive the copy of the impugned order. In a nutshell his submission was that in the present case no evidence has been led by the appellants to show that the copy of the impugned order-in-appeal was either not forwarded to the Executive Collector or that it was not received and mere ipse dixit in the application or in the affidavit sworn in by the Supdt. cannot be treated as a conclusive evidence in the absence of any documentary evidence on the record. 4. Considered. The contention of the Ld. SDR that the date of communication of the impugned order-in-appeal in the instant case be taken the date on which the cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present application under his signature for condonation of delay and the affidavit in support of it. Before we part one more fact is also required to be stated that is to say in the instant case the Collector authorised the Additional Collector to file the present appeal exercising his power under Section 35B(2) of the Act and further that he again authorised the Assistant Collector to move an application for early hearing (Misc. Application No. E/1049/92-D) but when the question of the present application arose it is the Superintendent who has filed the present application and his supporting affidavit. 5. In the result the captioned application for condonation of delay is rejected and as a consequence thereof the appeal is also dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
