2004 (2) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ms. Charul Baranwal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. This is an application, by M/s. Prakash Ispat Udyog Ltd., for condonation of delay of 4 years 7 months and 8 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner, under letter dated 18-5-99, fixed their annual capacity of production; that the sai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the delay in filing the appeal is not because of negligence on their part and, therefore, the same may be condoned and appeal may be heard on merits. 3. Countering the arguments, Ms. Charul Baranwal, learned SDR, submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 18-5-99 will clearly show that it is an order; that on the top of the said communication, it is mentioned as under : Final A.C. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... des. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it was an order determining the annual capacity of production of the mill of the applicants. As per Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, every appeal has to be filed within three months from the date on which the order said to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal. It is not disputed by the applicants that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X