- (1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 26-2-2004 passed by the Tribunal whereby the appellants' application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed. The first question, therefore, for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal insofar as dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay raises any substantial question of law.
(2.) The Tribunal has noted that the Commissioner by letter dated 18-5-1999 had fixed annual capacity of production and the letter was received on 20-5-1999. The explanation for not preferring the appeal was that the appellants were making efforts for getting some proper speaking order from the Department. After considering the various contentions as raised, the Tribunal held that a perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it was an order determining the annual capacity of production of the mill of the applicants. The time for filing the appeal as per Section 35B of the Central Excise Act was within three months from the date on which the order was received. The order was received on 20-5-1999. The learned Tribunal found that the cause shown by the appellants that they were representing against the matter has no force and no cause has been shown to condone the delay, hence the delay condonation application is rejected.
(3.) Once there be a quasi-judicial order, the remedy of a party is to seek the remedy available under the Act, in this case, an appeal before the Tribunal. By merely writings to the authority who had passed the order, cannot be said to be the sufficient cause as there is no power of review of his own order, and in absence thereof, the Central Excise Act does not confer any power of substantial review of such order.;