9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf of the Appellants. No letter had also been received from them. I am disposing of the Appeal after hearing Shri D.K. Saha, learned Senior Departmental Representative and after perusal of the record. The interest of the Appellants is not adversely affected by my disposal of the Appeal without hearing them by giving more opportunities for such facility. 2. The Appeal is against the Order-in-App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich prevented them from filing the Appeal within the prescribed period of three months. He, therefore, requested the Appeal as hit by limitation under Section 35(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 3. I find that the Appellants had filed their Appeal before the Collector (Appeals) challenging the decision of the Superintendent of Central Excise vide his letter dated 18-11-1987. They ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same in law. Though the Appellants were represented before the Collector by their Advocate, there is no indication in the impugned order that the above niceties of the matter were spelt out to enable them to make their submissions. For the first time, the Appellants were told that the time limit was to be reckoned with reference to the earlier letter dated 27-7-1987 issued by the Superintenden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aith they tried to get the matter sorted out at the Superintendent s own level by writing to him and only when they did not succeed they filed the Appeal, apparently wiser by their experience. In the circumstances of the case, I hold that the Appeal before the Collector should have been treated as having been filed against the letter dated 18-11-1987. I, therefore, set aside the impugned Order-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
