1987 (6) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Santhanam, Member (J)].  - The department has filed this appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta dated 8-2-1982. When the appeal was about to be heard on merits, Shri Ravinder Narain, Advocate for the respondents raised an objection that the appeal is time barred. There is also an application for con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of law applicable are the same unless the statute makes a distinction. 3.1987 (29) E.L.T. 300 (Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Parkar Corporation) was also cited. 4. In 1986 (24) E.L.T. 365 (Tribunal) = 1986 (8) ECR 207 (C.C.E., Madras v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., Madras), the Tribunal has observed that the applicant had to adjust his internal correspondence/affairs in his own way. The SDR d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the reasons that the matter was referred to the Central Board of Excise and Customs who directed the appeal to be filed on 24-5-1983. We find that the order-in-appeal was passed on 8-2-1982. According to the appellants, they received the order on 25-2-1982. We notice that it was only on 10-11-1982 that the proposals were sent to the Board. The letter o....