2017 (3) TMI 1066 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay - delay in filing appeal - time limitation - appellant have inadvertently filed the appeal before the wrong forum within time - whether there is no delay in filing the appeal? - Held that - although appeal was required to be filed before Commissioner of Customs (A), New Customs House, but appellant has filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (A) ICD TKD and same has been received in the office of Commissioner (C) ICD TKD within time. As appeal has been received in the office of Commissioner of Customs, ICD TKD, in that situation, either the office of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD should have not received the appeal or if same would have been forwarded to Commissioner of Customs (A) New Customs House, New Delhi - the appeal cannot be dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) New Customs House New Delhi, merely on the ground that the appeal has not been filed in time - the provision of section 14 of the limitation act are applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the period between 15.03.2012 to 18.07.2013 is required to be excluded - appeal restored - matter is remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (A) to decide the issue on merits - decided in favor of appellants.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal dismissed as time-barred
- Filing appeal before wrong forum
- Contention of delay in filing appeal
- Opposition to condoning delay
- Correctness of holding appeal barred by limitation
- Application of section 14 of Limitation Act 1963

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against an order which was dismissed as time-barred. The appellant argued that they initially filed the appeal before the wrong forum but within the time limit. The issue was whether the appeal filed before the wrong forum should be considered fatal to the appellant or not.

2. The appellant contended that even though the appeal was required to be filed before a specific authority, they filed it before a different authority within the time limit. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was indeed filed within time, albeit before the wrong Commissionerate. The Tribunal referred to the provision of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963, which allows for the exclusion of time in such cases.

3. The Tribunal considered various judicial pronouncements cited during the arguments, emphasizing that those cases dealt with appeals not filed within the time limit. However, in this case, the appeal was filed within time but before the incorrect authority. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act and excluded the period between the initial filing date and the correct filing date.

4. Relying on the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal held that the appeal should not be dismissed solely on the ground of incorrect filing within the time limit. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and concluded that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time frame once the exclusion period was considered.

5. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had not decided the issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner to decide the case on its merits. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant, recognizing the correct filing time after excluding the period due to the initial incorrect filing.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal provisions applied, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal.