COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. JAYASWALS NECO LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals have been filed by the Revenue with a COD applications. The delay in the case of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Ltd., is 106 days whereas the delay in the case of OCL India Ltd., is 153 days. No specific reason has been mentioned for condoning the delay except to say that delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted. The application has been signed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. There is no accompanying affidavit setting out the reasons for condoning the delay. Learned SDR refers to the time chart and the learned SDR relies on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 337 (S.C.).

(2.) LEARNED Counsels submit that in that case, the delay had been explained and the Apex Court was pleased to condone the delay of 57 days by -accepting the reasons given. He submits that in the present case, no reasons have been given nor affidavits filed. Therefore, he submits that this case is squarely covered by the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd., [1988 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.)]. They draw our attention to similar orders such as CCE, Bangalore v. Widia India Ltd., (Final Order No. 198, dated 9 -2 -2005) CC v. Mittal Ispat Ltd. [2002 (141) E.L.T. 117], CCE and C v. D.V. Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2002 (149) E.L.T. 290].

(3.) LEARNED Counsels also submit that on merits they are eligible for refund of anti -dumping duty. They submit that the issue is covered in their favour by Larger Bench decision in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay [2001 (129) E.L.T. 162].