COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. OSWAL OVERSEAS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

(2.) Shri M. Chandrasekharan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Revenue has preferred the Appeal against Order -in -Appeal No. 764 -

(3.) Opposing the prayer, Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner had accepted the impugned Order after taking into accounts all the factors; that thus the successor Commissioner can not review the decision of his predecessor and as such the present Appeal itself is not maintainable; that the Affidavit now submitted by Revenue has completely omitted main and vital grounds made out in Para 3 of the Condonation of Delay Application regarding acceptance of the impugned Order inadvertently; that the said ground has not been at all sworn in the Affidavit to be correct; that the acceptance of the impugned Order under inadvertence and misimpression of period involved i.e. before 16 -3 -1995 and wrongly accepted by the then Commissioner has not been sworn at all in the Affidavit now submitted; that thus the entire basis for filing of application for condonation of Delay has not at all been supported in the affidavit. He also submitted that the Department was not under misconception as the Appeal against the Commissioner's Adjudication Order was pending in the Tribunal.