1998 (11) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no reason has been cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) as to why he has taken up the condonation of delay application instead of the stay application as per order of the Hon'ble High Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. X, Mumbai-II, confirmed a duty demand of Rs.ÿ3,38,660.05 for non-production of proof of exports effected under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hereby resulting in the filing of the appeal after four months and 18 days, i.e., one and a half months beyond the prescribed period of three months prescribed for filing appeal [in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944], rejected the appeal as barred by time. Extension of time for the delay was not allowed because the appellants failed to advance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly received by the applicants, it was incumbent on them to reply to that in time. But they kept quiet. They ought to have enquired from the Department whether any personal hearing had been fixed, specially when they did not send a written reply. Hence, their pleading about not affording that opportunity is not tenable. It is observed that the original order passed in April, 1997 was communicated t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X