2002 (1) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal; that the Appellants neither received any notice of hearing nor they received any notice for explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeals; that in fact, they had not received any Final Order; that they came to know about the Final Order from the letter dated 27-7-2001 received from Suptd., Central Excise only; that in fact, as the department was pressing hard the applicant to make the payment of duty they had contacted Central Registry on 6-4-99 and submitted a demand draft on being directed by the Registry; that they again wrote a letter on 11-9-2000 and made request to grant stay as the department was pressurising them to make the payment. He, therefore, requested that the appeal may be restored to its original number. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sioner (Appeals) who provided the impugned Order on 21-1-97 on payment of proper fees; that they had filed a proper appeal on 16-4-97 which was within the time specified in Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. He, therefore, contended that there was no delay on their part and they have filed the appeal within the time limit. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Coronation Spinning India v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 376 (S.C.) wherein it was held that as the other appeals of same appellants on identical issue have been decided in their favour the appeal should not have been dismissed by the Tribunal as time barred for delay of 86 days. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Jaya Engg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s approached the Commissioner (Appeals) for the copy of the impugned Order which was given to them immediately; that the applicants have not acted as a reasonable man for getting the copy of the impugned Order, if the original was not received by them, and therefore, the ratio of all the decisions relied upon by them is not applicable. 4. As far as application for restoration of appeal is concerned the same is allowed in view of the facts narrated by the appellants and the learned Counsel. However, we agree with the learned SDR that the applicants have not given sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. As per sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, every appeal has to be filed within 3 ....