Judgment:
1. This application is filed by the applicant praying that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
2. The learned Counsel submitted that the original order is a nullity as it was passed beyond the terms of the remand order passed by the Tribunal. In this regard, he pointed out that the original order was not received by the applicants. But the applicants obtained a copy of the same, as the Range Supdt. forwarded this copy vide his letter OC No. 330/93 and the applicant received it on 26-5-1993. He pointed out that since the order itself was a nullity, the application has to be allowed and in this connection he relied on the decision of Kerala High Court reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 30 (Ker.) 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, contended that admittedly the order was received by the applicants on 28-5-93 and in spite of that fact they filed this appeal only on 28-10-96. He therefore pointed out that there is a delay of more than three years which is not at all explained by the applicant. He pointed out that while considering the delay application it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. He stated that the issue that has to be decided is as to whether this delay is satisfactorily explained by the applicant or not.
4. We have considered the submissions. We find that admittedly the applicant received the orders on 28-5-1993 from the Supdt. vide his letter OC No. 330/93. There is absolutely no mention in the application as to how this delay of three years was caused in filing this appeal.
The decision relied on by the learned Counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that particular decision at para 8 their Lordships had held that on facts of that case there was no conclusive evidence to show that notice was actually served by the authorities on the assessee. But, in this case, admittedly, the applicants received the order itself on 28-5-1993 as was mentioned by them in their EA3 form. Therefore that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. The merits or otherwise of the appeal can only be considered when the appeal itself is argued. But the point that has to be determined in this case is whether the applicants have placed materials before the Tribunal that they were not able to file the appeal in time for sufficient reasons. In this regard, no reasons whatsoever are furnished except to say that they were making correspondences with the authorities to change the order. Merely stating that they were corresponding with the authorities is not sufficient enough to hold that they have satisfactorily explained the delay in question. In the case cited by the learned Counsel, as already pointed out by us, the same was decided on the facts available in that case in view of the fact that there was no service of notice. In the premises, we hold that the present application is filed without any force and the same is dismissed. At this juncture, the learned Counsel stated that duty demanded in this case is for the second time and therefore the applicants have got good case on merits. This is a fact which they can urge before the concerned authorities and the same should be taken note of in proper proceedings. It goes without saying that duty cannot be demanded twice on the same goods. With these observations, we dismiss the condonation of delay application and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.