1998 (2) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to March 31, 1989. The appellant herein submitted its reply to the show cause notice, it was duly heard by the concerned Additional Collector and it appears that the Additional Collector passed an Order dated 17-1-1991. In the said order, he confirmed duty of Rs. 4,20,083.76. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant herein. It however appears that the applicant did not receive the said order passed by the Additional Collector, as alleged by the applicant although the order was sent by registered post. 1.2 Later on, the Superintendent of Central Excise vide his order dated 21st May, 1992 asked the appellant for payment of the said amount of duty and of penalty. On 5th June, 1992, the appellant informed the Superint....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been paid and if not whether any Appeal against the same had been filed. The appellant drew attention of the audit party to their letter dated 7th December, 1994. The Superintendent of Central Excise directed the appellant on 21st April, 1997 to make the payment. The appellant forwarded to the Superintendent of Central Excise copies of the correspondence exchanged with the audit officer. 1.7 In any way, the correspondence continued to be exchanged. On 7th August, 1997, the Superintendent of Central Excise threatened the appellant with stringent steps if it failed to pay the amount within 10 days. On receipt of this order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. The High Court directed the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the appellant/applicant on affidavit dated 24th September, 1997. Ld. Advocate, therefore, prays for allowing the Miscellaneous Application. 4. Opposing the contention, ld. SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that the facts clearly bring out the obstinacy on the part of the appellant in not filing the Appeal. The order dated 17-1-1991, it appears from the endorsement was sent by registered post to the appellant as is the usual practice of the Department. He, therefore, submits that there is no reason for the appellant for not receiving the copy of the said order in 1991 itself. Nevertheless, he submits that a copy of this order was duly supplied by the Assistant Collector on 12th November, 1994 under registered post and this fact is not....