9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h March 2000, who carried it to his home as the incharge Manager was not present on that day. The next day happened to be Sunday and on the subsequent day he totally forgot about it and never placed the impugned order to the Management of the appellant company. It is, submitted that the appellant had been issued with a show cause notice on 10-5-2000 for the period November 1999 to March, 2000 demanding duty. This show cause notice relied upon the Order dated 19-3-1998 which was an order fixing ACP on provisional basis. Although the latest show cause notice dated 14-3-2000 was issued, but he did not refer to the impugned order. Therefore, the appellants were unaware of the impugned order. It is stated that the appellants, when they appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the order had not been passed by the Commissioner as adjudicating authority and therefore, the order was infructuous in the eye of law and on that ground condoned the delay. 4. The learned SDR opposed the prayer and pointed out to the counter reply by the Commissioner. Para 2(d) which is re-produced here points out the details of the impugned order having been brought out in the proceedings which was participated by the appellant. (d) The other contention of the applicant is that there was no mention in the show cause notice dated 10-5-2000 of the Order dated 14-3-2000 regarding the fixation of the Annual Capacity of Production on final basis by the Commissioner. The present application before the Hon'ble C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aware of the impugned order but had not taken any steps to file the appeal. The negligence is patent on record and, therefore, they should not be given the benefit of condonation of delay. He pointed out that the Counsel relies on Mumbai Bench Order condoning the delay in the case of Vindhyachal Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 525(T) on the ground that the factory was under lock-out and the watchman was not an authorized person, is not a correct law in terms of Larger Bench's judgment rendered in the case of Kanoria Wisconsin Centrifugal Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 596 (Tribunal) wherein the condonation of delay was not accepted on similar plea of mis-placement of papers, as the unit was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed. The appellants were fully aware as can be seen from the reply supplied by the Revenue about the impugned order. The Counsel has relied on the Punjab Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh Iron Steel Rolling Mills v. CEGAT. The facts are quite distinguishable by the reason that the Writ Petition had been filed challenging the show cause notice and the same is dismissed granting liberty to the appellants to appeal before the CEGAT. In such a circumstance, the non-condonation of delay by CEGAT was held to be improper while in the present case, the appellant had not chosen to file any appeal against the impugned order. The Counsel referred to the remand order of the Tribunal, which was on a different issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
