2015 (5) TMI 561

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed on 15.09.2014 after a delay of 293 days in filing of the appeal, the application for condonation of delay has been filed. There is no dispute that the appellant for filing of this appeal have complied with the provisions of Section 35 F and have paid an amount of 7.5 % of the duly demand confirmed against them. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of COD application. 3. Shri B.L . Narsimhan , Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the issue involved in this case - whether Masala Mix prepared by the appellant for use in the manufacture of namkeens would attract central excise duty or not, is a recurring issue, that earlier four show cause notices dated 26.03.2009, 5.4.2010, 25.02.2011 and 25.01.2012 had been adjudicat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Section 35 F w.e.f 6.8.2014, the appellant had to pay the amount equal to 7.5% of the duty demand confirmed for compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F, that in respect of the another adjudication order dated 17.01.2014 for the period from August, 2012 to March, 2013 the appeal had been filed in time, that this shows the delay in filing of the appeal against order-in-original dated 26.08.2013 was due to bona fide mistake, that in this regard, an Affidavit of Ms. Shruti Kakkar as well as of Shri Sandeep Berry has also been placed on record, that in view of the Apex Court's judgement in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC), length of delay is not relevant and what is relevant is as t....