2006 (11) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs-in-Original No. 73/96, dated 8-3-1996 and No. 92/96, dated 28-3-1996 passed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appeals were filed beyond the time-limit and rejected them as time barred in his Orders-in-Appeals, dated 28-2-2005. Thereafter, the appellants approached the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to examining the sufficiency or otherwise of the service of the Show Cause Notice and whether the appeals have been filed within the period of limitation. Consequent to the remand order of the High Court, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned orders dated 27-9-2005. In the said order, the Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Revenue. 4. The learned Consultant urged the following points :- (i) There is no documentary evidence in proof of service of the OIO with the Revenue. (ii) There is no letter authorising Shri AGK Murthy, under Rule 3 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 to be an agent of the appellant unit authorising him to sign the documents. The letter dated 6-8-2004 is only a dictated one for the reason nobody can remember the numbers of the OIO dates and amount confirmed in terms of Rs. 1,62,396/- and Rs. 6,50,461/- as mentioned in the said letter after a lapse of 8 years. It is further seen that the Managing Partner has himself stated in the said letter that due to fire accident all records available were destroyed and he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 193) E.L.T. 132 (Cal.) (f) Ashish upta v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.-Del.) (g) Diwan International v. CC, Mumbai - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 153 (Tri.-Del.) (h) Rajshree Dyeing Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 9 (Guj.) (i) Yogesh Kumar Garg v. UOI - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 251 (M.P.) (j) Ravi Fans (P) Limited v. CCE, Allahabad - 2005 (184) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.-Del.) (k) Pragnya Software Systems Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 1099 (T) = 2005 (69) RLT 149 (CESTAT-Bang.) (l) CC CE, Bhopal v. Tirupati Steel Industries - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 149 (M.P.) (m) Morvi Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CCE, Rajkot - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 599 (Tri.-Mumbai). 5. The JCDR state .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X