9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S.M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. This is an application to condone the delay of 304 days in filing this appeal. 2. The appellant is engaged in the production and clearance of Hot re-rolled products falling under Chapter 72 73 of the Schedule .to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Under order dated 14-12-2001 the Commissioner determin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain a preamble. 3. The appellant places reliance on Clause 34 of the Adjudication Manual and also decisions of the Bombay High Court in Dhanlakshmi Fabrics Ltd. v. Union of India Others [2003 (153) E.L.T. 42 (Bom.) = 2003 (54) RLT 11 (Bom.)] and Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills v. CCE, Aurangabad [2001 (133) E.L.T. 619 (Tri-Mum.)] in support of its contention that order dated 14-12-2001 was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contained in Rule 213 read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, (Deptt. of Revenue), Notification No. 69/59 G.S.R. No. 8/22 dated 18-7-59. It is true that for the convenience and benefit of the assessee, it would be always better if the order contains the preamble. But only for the reason that there was no preamble the order cannot be one not having the characteristics of a final order. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case, we find that the assessee who was under a bona fide mistaken impression that the order without a preamble is not appealable. The assessee having approached the Department with two representations, it was only just and proper on the part of the Department to have replied him in time. If such a reply had been given in time there would not have been any delay in filing this app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
