9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent determining the installed capacity of the Petitioner's Plant at 14 Chambers. On 24-6-1999 final order came to be passed by the 4th Respondent whereby the number of Chambers of the factory of the Petitioners was determined at 14.98 chambers. This order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and making of oral submissions. 3.The aforesaid order passed by the 4th Respondent dated 24-6-1999 was placed for legal opinion of the Consultant, who by his letter dated 3-8-1999 opined that this is not an appealable order for want of any preamble informing the assessee so as to what steps to take in case of the contest. The Petitioners were advised to file a detailed representation to the Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-original dated 24-6-1999 along with an application for condonation of delay. In that application, the grounds disclosed were that advice of the Legal Consultant made Petitioners to believe that the order dated 24-6-1999 was not an appealable order for want of preamble and being in breach of principles of natural justice the Commissioner of Central Excise will consider their representation in its proper perspective and realising the necessity of following principles of natural justice, they may get an opportunity of hearing. The only ground sought to be pressed in service is that the Petitioners believed on the advise of the Consultant since the impugned order did not have the preamble, with the result there was no advice given to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 24-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, advice of the Consultant was taken, who, by his written opinion, had advised the Petitioners to make a representation against this order, possibly holding a view that the order in question was not an appealable order. After receipt of this advice, the petitioners acted upon the said advice and made representation to the Respondent No. 4 on 1-9-1999. This representation did not yield any result. Consequently, the Petitioners made a second representation on 10th March, 2000 i.e. practically after 6 months. Even no cognizance of the said representation was taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, the Respondent No. 4. Both these representations were kept pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder as their representations, might be considered by the authorities and in that view of the matter, if no appeal was preferred by the Petitioners and ultimately the same was preferred on 20-11-2001; after the final order of the Appellate authority rejecting the refund claim, it cannot be said that there is no satisfactory explanation. 14.No doubt, there is delay in preferring the appeal but the delay cannot be solely attributed to the Petitioners alone. All have contributed to this delay. Consultant contributed by giving legal advise, may be wrong but bona fide in view of the Judgment of the Tribunal referred to hereinabove. The Respondent No. 4 has also contributed to this delay by keeping the representations for review pending till to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
