F. I. Rebello, J. - (1.)Rule. Heard forthwith.
(2.)The petitioner is a manufacturer of Centrifugal Pumps. The petitioners also manufacture goods which are inputs for the pumps and which are used in the manufacture of the pumps. There is no dispute that the pumps as manufactured are exempt from Central Excise Duty. The Respondent Authorities by order dated 13th September, 2000 in respect of the castings manufactured by the petitioners held that the castings are marketable goods. Further held that they are classifiable under C.H.H. 73.25 and 74.19 (depending on the metal used) and, therefore, the classification was correct. Various other questions were considered and in conclusion proposed quantify the duty and consequently directed the assessee to furnish certain data. Another order was passed to the similar effect on 14th September, 2000.
(3.)Pursuant to the said orders the petitioner furnished the necessary information. By order dated 11th November, 2004 the respondent No.4 demanded duty on the CI castings for the amount specified therein. Subsequent thereto the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Appeal. That appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Appellate Authority found that they had no jurisdiction to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the Appeal by the order dated 28th April, 2006. Aggrieved by that order an Appeal was preferred to the CESTAT. The CESTAT on hearing the Appeal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in not condoning the delay as that was beyond his jurisdiction. In view of that the application made for waiver of pre-deposit was rejected and consequently the Appeal also came to be dismissed.