9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the date of filing of the appeal with stay application and the date of passing of the stay order, a question had arisen as to whether appeals (like the captioned one) filed against adjudicatory orders of Additional Collectors of Customs and Central Excise passed before 14-5-1992 (the date on which the Finance Act, 1992 came into force) were maintainable before the Tribunal. This question was settled by the WRB as per Misc. Order dated 16-12-1992 in a batch of 15 appeals including the instant appeal, whereby the Tribunal held that such appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal. The Bench, further, directed the Registry to post the appeals for hearing in their turn. It is pertinent to note that the said miscellaneous order was passed by the Bench without going into the Question of delay (if any) in the filing of the appeals. 3. As already noted, the present COD application has been filed by the appellants praying for condonation of a delay of 72 days involved in the filing of the appeal. The learned Advocate, Sh. M.A. Rangaswami appearing for the applicants/appellants have elaborately reiterated the grounds stated in the COD application. The facts and circumstances constituti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions of the Tribunal :- (I) Shalimar Group Private Limited v. Collector of Customs [1990 (50) E.L.T. 390 (Tribunal)]. (II) Krishna and Company v. Collector of Customs [1995 (75) E.L.T. 589 (Tribunal)]. In the former case, the preamble to the Order-in-Original had stated that an appeal therefrom lay to the appellate Collector. But the preamble was subsequently amended by a corrigendum stating that an appeal from the Order-in-Original had to be filed before the Tribunal. The question arose whether the period of limitation had to be reckoned from the date of communication of the corrigendum. The Tribunal, while dealing with such question, observed that the preamble to the Order-in-Original was not a legal requirement nor was it a part of the adjudication order. This finding of the Tribunal, we observe, is rather against the Department. The learned Departmental Representative has drawn our attention to the preamble to the Additional Collector s order impugned in the present appeal and has pointed out that the preamble clearly guided the party to prefer appeal against the order before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative has further submitted that, inspite of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of time as urged by the Counsel.] The learned Advocate has, therefore, prayed for a justice-oriented approach in the matter and for the condonation of the delay of 72 days involved in the filing of the appeal. 8. We have carefully examined the rival submissions. We have also observed that there was a clear guidance in the preamble to the impugned order that an appeal from that order lay to the CEGAT. This by itself, in our view, cannot be a stumbling block on our way in the matter of considering the COD Application on the various grounds stated therein, which need to be considered in a justice-oriented manner. We need not restate the facts and circumstances which constituted the cause of the delay in the filing of the appeal in as much as the same are, materially, not disputed before us. We are of the considered view that in such circumstances, the delay of the appeal has got to be condoned in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we allow the COD Application and take up the appeal for hearing on merits. 9. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under different chapters of the new Central Excise Tariff during the period of dispute (March, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment and requested to drop the proceedings against them. The dispute was adjudicated upon by the Additional Collector of Central Excise who, by the impugned orders held that the appellants product appropriately fitted into Tariff sub -heading 4009.92 of the Central Excise Tariff. The lower authority further held that the description of the product by the appellants under Tariff sub-heading 8431.00 was a mis-statement intending at wrong classification. The lower authority, therefore, confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs.1 lac on the party. It is this order of the Additional Collector which is under challenge in the present appeal. 10. We have carefully examined the impunged order, the show-cause notice, the reply thereto and connected records of the case. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Departmental Representative for the respondent/Revenue. 11. The learned Counsel has submitted that the entire demand of duty as proposed in the show-cause notice is barred by limitation. The classification list filed by the appellants w.e.f. 1-3-1986 classifying their product under Tariff sub-heading 8431.00 had been duly approved by the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
