ORDER
Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. These are two appeals filed by M/s. Delton Cables Ltd. being aggrieved with a common order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In her order-in-appeal, the adjudicating authority had dismissed two appeals on the ground that the appeals had been filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellants submitted that after the receipt of the adjudication orders in which some of the refund amounts had been disallowed, they had requested the adjudicating authority to furnish information, details etc. on the basis of which the claims had been rejected. He further submitted that no information was forthcoming from the adjudicating authority and they wrote to the appellate authority informing of the same even before filing the appeal. He prayed that the delay be condoned and matter remanded for de novo consideration.
3. In reply Shri Satnam Singh, SDR, stated that no cogent reasons had been given for filing the appeal late and that the appellate authority had considered their submissions and passed a speaking reasoned order. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4. We have carefully considered the matter. The matter related to refund claims. The adjudicating authority after observing the principles of natural justice deducted certain amounts from the refund claims and allowed the rest of the claims. He observed that the goods in respect of which the refund claim was not allowable had been supplied by the manufacturer to the local consumers or dealers who did not possess any telecommunication network and, therefore, it was not ascertainable whether such goods had been used for the purpose as stipulated in the relevant Notification No. 197/79-C.E., dated 31-5-1979.
5. We find that two adjudication orders dated 19-9-1995 (sic) and 8-10-1985 had been received by the appellants on 1-10-1985 and 9-10-1985 respectively. After the appealable orders have been passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, in place of filing the appeals, the appellants wrote to the adjudicating authority to furnish them details to enable them to submit the appeals to the appellate Collector. The learned Advocate had submitted that the first communication written to the Asstt. Collector was dated 16-1-1986 which had been received in the Office of the Asstt. Collector on 17-1-1986. We find that in one case the adjudication order was received by the appellants on 1-10-1985 and in another case it was received on 9-10-1985. By the time the first letter was written, the three months’ period for filing the appeals was already over.
6. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had gone through the appellants’ explanation for the delay and held that the same was not satisfactory and convincing. She had given an opportunity to the appellants to present their case and had held that there was no justification for condoning the delay in both the matters.
7. Before us also the same grounds have been agitated as were made before the appellate authority. The learned Advocate had referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji – 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a liberal approach is needed in condoning the delay and that if there was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay, then the delay should be condoned. He also referred to the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Akry Rasayan – 1997 (89) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal). We find that in both these appeals no sufficient grounds have been established for filing the appeals late. The only ground taken is that they wanted some more information from the adjudicating authority. We find that these requests have also been made when the period for filing the appeal was already over.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any material on record to justify interference with the view already taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the matter. As a result, both these appeals are dismissed.