ARUNODAY MILLS LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V.N. Nair, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that there was a delay of only one day in filing the 57T declaration as mentioned at page 57 and in the show cause notice at page 48. Shri Nair contended that under the proviso to the said rule delay upto 3 months could be condoned. He submitted that the request for condonation of the delay was made before the lower authorities but the adjudicating authority while rejecting the request did not pass any speaking order and whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) touched the aspect of condonation of delay on a different footing unrelated to the issue in question. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of Magnum Industries reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 595 (Tri.). The said decision relates to order passed on stay petition. However, the learned counsel contended that he issue of condonation of delay in filing the declaration discussed in the said decision and it has been inter alia held that the request of condonation of delay can not be rejected by the lower authorities on he ground that the same was made after the issue of the show cause notice. In view of the above fact, credit has been taken under the necessary declaration.

(2.) Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the order passed by the lower authorities and contended that the credit has rightly been denied to the appellants.

(3.) After hearing both sides and perusal of records, I find that there is a delay of only one day in filing the 57T declaration. Normally such delay should have been condoned by the authorities and the credit should not have been denied merely on the basis of delay of one day particularly wen the statute permits condonation of delay upto the period of three months. I do not find any reasons having been given by the lower authorities as to why they did not condone the delay of one day. Under this circumstances, I condone the delay of one day in filing the 57T declaration and allow the appeal filed by the appellants with consequential benefit if any. This order will be confined only to the appeal filed by the appellants against the order in original No. 90/DEMAND/1995 dated 21.9.1995. (Dictated in Open Court)