9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. On hearing ld. Counsel Shri Amar Dave for the applicants it became clear that at this stage the appeal itself could be disposed of. This was so done. 2. The facts are as follows : A show Cause Notice was issued to the present appellants on 19-7-1989. On 13-12-1989 the assessees replied to the notice. On 18-12-1990 the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessees had requested for condonation. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Ureka Forbes Ltd. - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 591 was cited in urging the Commissioner to condone the delay even beyond the powers given to the Commissioner under the Act. The Commissioner in the impugned order cited the Sec. 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, did not condone the delay and dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory was not operational, the management of the unit was not aware of the order issued by the Assistant Collector. It is not denied that the order was received but it is claimed that perhaps the watchman had received it. When the local Excise Officers came to their factory in January, the management became aware of the existence of the order. It is not described in what manner, the management becam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause preventing the appellants from filing of the appeal. 7. We have seen the cited judgment of the Allahabad High Court. We have also seen the Supreme Court judgment in the case of U.O.I v. Kirloskar Ltd. 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401. We also note that the Hon ble High Court in making the judgment had referred to and relied upon the Supreme Court s observation in the case reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
