Satya Shree Cement Udyog Ltd. Vs. Cce - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....the applicants immediately wrote to the concerned authorities for supply of copy of adjudication order. the applicants also produced copies of letter written to the concerned authorities dated 14.7.97 and 23.4.99 asking for copy of the adjudication orders. the adjudication order, subsequently, was supplied to the applicants on 23.4.99. the contention of the applicants is that their appeals were within time.5. the contention of the revenue is that the adjudication order was dispatched to the appellants on 23.12.96 and 26.2,97 through registered post and the applicants had not taken any step to file appeal within time. therefore, the appeals are time-barred.6. in the impugned order, we find that there is no finding in respect of service of the adjudication order on the applicants. the applicants made repeated requests for supply of the adjudication order. in these circumstances, prima-facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants. therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeals. adjourned to 28.2.2002 for arguments.

Judgment:

1. The applicants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 52,866.53 and penalty of Rs. 5,000.00.

2. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.

4. The contention of the appellants is that they received the adjudication orders dated 23.12.96 and 26.2.97 only on 23.4.99 and the appeals were filed on 21.5.99. Their submission is that on receipt of letter from the Supdt. of Central Excise for recovery of arrears, the applicants immediately wrote to the concerned authorities for supply of copy of adjudication order. The applicants also produced copies of letter written to the concerned authorities dated 14.7.97 and 23.4.99 asking for copy of the adjudication orders. The adjudication order, subsequently, was supplied to the applicants on 23.4.99. The contention of the applicants is that their appeals were within time.

5. The contention of the revenue is that the adjudication order was dispatched to the appellants on 23.12.96 and 26.2,97 through registered post and the applicants had not taken any step to file appeal within time. Therefore, the appeals are time-barred.

6. In the impugned order, we find that there is no finding in respect of service of the adjudication order on the applicants. The applicants made repeated requests for supply of the adjudication order. In these circumstances, prima-facie, the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicants. Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeals. Adjourned to 28.2.2002 for arguments.