ISHAR ALLOYS (P) LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides and perused the records.

(2.) THE short point involved in the instant appeal is whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order -in -Original dt.30.3.2000 is time barred or not. The appellants have filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 27.2.06.

(3.) (i) The appellants have contended that they had closed their mill and got its registration with the Central Excise Department cancelled on 27.8.97, and the possession of the premises was given to M/s. Mittal Alloy for carrying on their business in pursuance of mortgage deed executed on 19.8.97. The premises were in the possession of M/s. Mittal Alloy from 1997 to 30.9.05 and they were carrying on their business activities in their own name and style since 1997. The appellant again got registered with the department only on 30.9.05. They contended that the mortgage deed is a substantial evidence to establish that they were not in possession of the premise from 19.8.1997 to 30.9.05. They stated that the letters dt.27.8.97 and 30.9.05, which were submitted with the Central Excise Department, regarding cancellation and application for registration by them support their claim that they had stopped their manufacturing activities during the period of alleged delivery of the Order -in -Original.