2011 (9) TMI 934 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before a wrong forum though under bona fide belief - the appeal papers were not returned to the petitioners for presentation before the appropriate forum even after several reminders - Held that - The time spent in prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum under bona fide belief would fall under exclusion clause as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act - when the Tribunal directed its registry to return the papers for presentation before appropriate forum and the case of the petitioners is that such documents were not supplied, the entire issue has to be looked from the angle of the petitioners. Petitioners had bona fide filed their appeal before a forum which lacked jurisdiction - delay to be condoned - Revisional Authority shall entertain the revision of the petitioners on merits - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India regarding duty and penalties imposed, delay in filing revision application, exclusion of time spent in pursuing remedy before a wrong forum from the limitation period.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order confirming duty and imposing penalties, which was appealed but dismissed by the appellate Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an appeal before CESTAT along with a stay application partially allowed due to a deposit made. However, CESTAT later held the appeal as not maintainable, directing the petitioners to present the case before the appropriate forum. Despite reminders, the Tribunal did not return the original appeal papers to the petitioners, leading them to file a revision application before the Government of India, explaining the delay and seeking consideration on merits. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision solely based on the delay of 4 years and 9 months without delving into the merits of the case.

The High Court observed that the Revisional Authority failed to consider the time spent by the petitioners before CESTAT, where they genuinely believed their appeal was maintainable. The court emphasized that the time spent pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum under a bona fide belief should be excluded from the limitation period according to Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Notably, the court highlighted that the Revisional Authority did not address the petitioners' explanation for the delay or the fact that the Tribunal had directed the petitioners to present their case before the appropriate forum. The court concluded that the impugned order dismissing the revision based solely on delay was unjust, quashing it and instructing the Revisional Authority to consider the petitioners' revision on merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Revisional Authority to entertain the petitioners' revision application on its merits, taking into account the exclusion of time spent before the wrong forum and ensuring a fair consideration of the case in accordance with the law.