9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi passed the order-in-appeal on 27-10-1989. The appellants have received the same in their office on 7-11-1989. The appellants have contended that they should have filed the appeal against the said order on or before 6th February 90. The reason for delay in filing the appeal given by them is that the appellants were not given opportunity of personal hearing by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) even though the same was specifically requested by them in their Memo of appeal. They have further contended that they had not received notice of personal hearing. They have submitted that after they received the impugned order, they forwarded a letter by registered post on 9-11-1989 by which they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector (Appeals) on 9-11-1989 requesting the Collector to reopen the case by giving them an opportunity of personal hearing. 4. Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals, submitted that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the Collector (Appeals) would consider the appellants' request for re-opening the case but as they did not receive any communication from the Collector (Appeals), they were constrained to file this appeal. Under the circumstances, he sought for condonation of delay and to take the appeal on record. He further relied on the ruling as reported in 1990 25 ECC 412. 5. Shri L.N. Murthy, learned Departmental Representative opposed the applications on the ground that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per their letters dated 9-11-1989 is clear on record. There is considerable delay after the expiry of the date. The appellants have not taken steps to file the appeal in time nor they have explained the delay after the expiry of prescribed time-limit as per law. The reasons given by them for condoning the delay are not sufficient. The citation relied by Shri Harbans Singh is not on question of delay. We do not find any reason to condone the delay and as such, both the applications are required to be dismissed and the same are dismissed, and as a consequence the appeals are also dismissed. 7. [Order per: G. Sankaran, President]. -I have carefully perused the order proposed by learned brother Shri Peeran but I regret that I am unable to agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department has not sought to rebut the averments of the appellants. The Revenue has not shown that the notices of hearing for 19-9-1989 and 26-10-1989 in the case of Appeal No. 2174/90 and for 26-10-1989 in the case of the other appeal before the Collector (Appeals) were sent to the appellants by registered post which would have at least entitled the Collector to presume that the appellants would have, in the ordinary course, received the notice of hearing. The appellants have averred the same contentions before us as in their applications before the Collector (Appeals). 10. In Gopi Krishna Agarwal v. Union of India and Others decided by the Allahabad High Court - (1990) 25 ECC 412 (All.), it has been held that every authority has ancillar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
