Full Judgment
2. The Commissioner in the impugned order dated 8-2-2000 has held that length of gallery shall be includable in the length of chamber for determination of annual capacity of production of the unit.
3. The applicant have filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the instant case the adjudicating order is dated 8-2-2000 which was communicated to the appellants on 11-2-2000. The appellant's appeal was received in this Tribunal on 24-5-2000. Thus there is delay of 19 days. Explaining the delay in the application the appellants have stated that compounded levy was imposed w.e.f.
16-12-1998; that there was total unrest in the factory; that there was some problem with the electricity department also; that in these circumstances applicants could not submit their appeal in time, it has therefore been prayed that in view of these circumstances the delay of 19 days may be condoned.
4. Shri A.K. Jain Ld. SDR leaves it to the bench. We have considered these submissions made in their application, though no one was present when the matter was called. We find that there was sufficient cause for submission of the appeal belatedly. In this view the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
5. After deciding the issue of delay we proceeded to consider the request for staying the operation of the impugned order. We note that the issue in this case is inclusion of the length of the galleries in the total length of the chambers for purpose of computing the annual capacity of production. We note further that two benches of this Tribunal have held different views and the matter has since been referred to be placed before Larger Bench. This tribunal in such cases has been waiving pre-deposit of duties and penalties. In the instant case duty and penalty has not been quantified and the prayer is for staying the operation of the order. The prayer is allowed. The stay petition is accordingly allowed.