TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demands of duty against the assessee in respect of two items of goods manufactured and captively used for the manufacture of final products falling under Heading 96.03 of the CETA Schedule which were chargeable to "Nil" rate of duty. 2. Heard both sides. It appears from the records that the lower appellate authority was dealing with eight appeals filed against equal number of Orders-in-Original. The normal period of limitation for an appeal to be filed with the said authority was three months under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act as the provision then stood. The appellate authority was empowered to condone delay beyond this period, up to three months, under the proviso to Section 35(1). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 empowered the appellate authority to condone delay of up to three months where it was satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Such satisfaction of the appellate authority could be recorded only upon sufficient reasons having been shown by the appellant for belated filing of the appeal. The reasons must be part of the record. Thus it is implicit in the above provision that the appellant should make an application for condonation of delay of the appeal, wherein he should state the reasons for the delay. No such application was filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with appeal No. 140/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls). Both sides have put forth their respective positions before us. Ld. Counsel has made a further point that the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored two earlier orders passed, in the same assessee's case, by the predecessor - Commissioner (Appeals). Copies of the two Orders-in-Appeal have also been produced by the Counsel and we have perused the same. These are Order-in-Appeal No. 289/01 (CBE) (GVN), dated 23-11-2001 and Order-in-Appeal No. 132/2002 CBE (GVN), dated 28-6-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Trichirappalli. The relevant portion of Order-in-Appeal No. 289/01 reads as under :- "In respect of Brush Shaft Assembly, the lower authority confirmed the same on the ground that a declaration under Rule 173B is required to be file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view taken in Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 289/01 and 132/02, he did not follow the same, nor did he attempt to distinguish the case on hand. Upon a perusal of the said Orders-in-Appeal, we find that those orders were passed on sets of facts similar to those of the instant case. There is no reason why those orders should not be followed. In the result, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption in respect of Brush Shaft Assembly and the demand of duty on the said goods is not sustainable. 5. In respect of Washer, the appellants have claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93. This benefit was denied by both the lower authorities. Whereas, the original authority denied the benefit on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
