TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )]. - 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 heard arguments on the application. 2.Shri J.N. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 (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 reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (Collector, Land Acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 reference to this aspect. It is manifest that even the ver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that there was sufficient cause in condoning the delay. This decision cannot be pressed into service in a case whether the delay may either be deliberate or on account of negligence. The inordinate and long delay in the case shows that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
