TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent. [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 condonation of delay. Hence we hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nless 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 drew our attention to the ruling report....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 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 of the Board dated 24-5-1983 makes refere....