TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n these writ petitions had filed five appeals before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) against the assessment orders passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kamarapalayam Range, Kamarapalyam. Out of the five appeals, one appeal alone was in time and the same was allowed on 9-9-1996, in Appeal No. 615 of 1996. The other four appeals, bearing Nos. 608 to 611 of 1996 were found to be barred by limitation, ranging from two days to 32 days. These appeals were dismissed as time barred. Against these four appeals, the petitioner went up to the CEGAT [Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal] in Appeal Nos. 1415 to 1418 of 1996. Out of the said four appeals before the CEGAT, Appeal Nos. 1417 and 1418 of 1996 were allowed and the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (second respondent) of Central Excise (Appeals). Appeal Nos. 1415 and 1416 of 1996 were, however, dismissed. W.P. Nos. 18901 and 18902 of 1996 are directed against the orders in applications filed by the petitioner, seeking exemption from pre-deposit. The CEGAT has directed payment of the entire amount as per the original order. In my considered view,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of the RT 12 Returns no show cause notice was required to be issued. We had also pointed out to the learned Advocate, even if this plea was accepted if the order issued without issue of the show cause notice, was not proper, the same could only be considered as a voidable order. 6. Today the learned Advocate Shri Ramesh has appeared and arguing on the merits of the issue, he pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal was only 32 days. He has urged that the appellants received the assessment memorandum on 5-2-1996 and, thereafter, they had been talking to the authorities regarding the status of the order and thereafter they followed it up with a letter dated 15-5-1996 asking for an appealable order. He fully concedes that the earlier discussions, if any, the appellant had with the authorities are not referred to in this letter and he has no evidence about any dialogue the appellant had with the authorities in regard to the assessment memorandum as was received by them on finalisation of the RT 12 Returns. He has pleaded that the appellants were actuated by bona fides in not filing the appeal within the period of 3 months and once they come to know by the reply of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment has pleaded that the appellants are regular assessees and they are expected to know the law and the import and assessment done under Rule 173F and 173-I. Under Rule 173-I, it is enjoined upon the assessee to make good the deficiency in case on assessment further duty is to be paid. He has pleaded that the two courses open to them were either to make good the deficiency or to file an appeal against the assessment memorandum. He has pleaded that the appellant did neither and waited out till the limitation period had run out. He has pleaded in this background no bona fides can be read in the conduct of the appellants. He has, therefore, pleaded that the delay could not be condoned. 10. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the assessment done on the RT 12 Returns was in pursuance to the statutory requirements of the Central Excise Rules 173F read with Rule 173-I. As in the case of assessment of a Bill of Entry in the Customs side, this RT 12 assessment is in regard to the clearances made during the month. This assessment done is in pursuance to the statutory function assigned to the competent assessing officer. Once the competent assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances arising after the period of limitation can not constitute such sufficient cause. But when the appellant had allowed limitation to expire without the appeal being filed and when the sufficient cause could not be established within this period of limitation, their lordships held that such causes are not sufficient to condone the delay. On the same analogy the letter dated 15-5-1996 was written by them after the period of limitation was over and no cause within the period of limitation is established by the appellants in this case. In this view of the matter, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, we are of the view that no sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. 12. The learned Advocate also relied on the decision of M/s. Kosal Metal and stated there was a bona fide belief of the appellants that before the RT 12 Returns was finalised, there should be a show cause notice and that there was a bona fide belief on the part of the appellants. We fail to appreciate this plea of the appellants also in view of the fact that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ajit Singh which is extracted by us, the appellants should h....