ORDER
V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. In these applications for condonation of delay filed by the Revenue no detailed grounds have been made explaining as to how the delay took place and as to how it was beyond their control. The applications merely note that there was delay in filing the appeals and seeks condonation of delay thereof.
2. Heard Shri S. Sudarsan, learned DR who reiterates.
3. Heard Shri K. Subrahmanyam Assistant Works Accountant of the respondents who submits that the applications for condonation of delay are bald and there is no justification for the condonation of delay applications given by the Revenue. He further submits that the issue in Appeal No. E/200/2000 relates to denial of Modvat credit on capital goods i.e. Cables, Transformers and Control panels and submits that all these items have since been allowed the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods by the ruling of the Larger Bench in the case of Jawahar Mills as reported in 1999 (108) ELT 47. In the other appeal, the issue involved is availability of Modvat credit on HSD. He therefore, prays that even on merits the Revenue has no case at all and since the delay remains unexplained, the Revenue appeals may be rejected.
4. I have considered the submissions and records of the case. I find that the Revenue applications for condonation of delay are one line applications. They have not given either the number of delays involved or any reason whatsoever as to how the delay was caused. Therefore, no cause at all has been shown while seeking condonation of delay. I also find on prima facie consideration that the question of availability Modvat credit in respect of the items involved in Appeal No. E/200/2000 i.e. Cables. Transformers and Control panels as noted above, has been settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case Jawahar Mills case (supra). Therefore, on merits also, on prima facie consideration, the Revenue has not been able to demonstrate any strong case. As far as available of Modvat credit on HSD oil is concerned, prima-facie, merits may be in favour of the Revenue. However, I find that consideration of the issue is pending before the Larger Bench. Since no cause has been shown for condonation of delay, the delay cannot be condoned on bald applications.
5. In view of the above, the applications for condonation of delay is rejected and accordingly, the appeals are also dismissed being time barred.