9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, vide his order dated 31-10-2000 confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 92,720/- on the appellants and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on them. The party filed an appeal. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad in his order dated 15-10-2001 observed that the Order-in-Original, dated 31-10-2000 is recieved by the appellants on 22-12-2000 as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants have not been afforded any opportunity of hearing and therefore the order of the lower appellate authority in dismissing their appeal as time barred is bad in law. He is also relying on the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of his contention :- (i) M/s. Maithan Ceramic Limited v. CCE [2002 (149) E.L.T. 564 (T) = 2001 (47) RLT 850 (T)] (ii) Perfect Refractories v. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal was being filed beyond even the period of condonation of delay - did not file any petition for condonation of the period of delay. I therefore, find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the lower appellate authority. The reliance placed by the ld. Counsel for the appellants on the aforesaid two decisions of the Tribunal is misplaced. In the first decision in Maithan Ceramic Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
