2018 (9) TMI 1266 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 610 days in filing the appeal - Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 - delay occurred on the ground that the impugned order was challenged initially before the Hon ble High Court though writ petition in the Civil Writ Petition No. 12919/2016 dated 29.06.2016 and the said writ petition has been withdrawn by the applicant on 06.04.2018 and thereafter on 15.05.2018, they filed an appeal before this Tribunal. Held that - It is a fact to be taken on record that while approaching to the Hon ble High Court, the Hon ble High Court has entertained such writ petition and decided the issue in the case of M/s Ambika International 2016 (6) TMI 919 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and granted the relief to the petitioner. Admittedly, the applicant approach to the Hon ble High Court on 29.06.2016 relying on the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of M/s Ambika International. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the applicant was not under bonafide belief that they can seeking remedy before the Hon ble High Court, therefore, benefit of the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is entitled to the applicant. The application for condonation of delay is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought condonation of delay of 610 days in filing the appeal, explaining that the impugned order was initially challenged before the High Court via a writ petition, which was later withdrawn. The appeal was subsequently filed before the Tribunal. The applicant relied on a previous decision of the Tribunal in Ncectar Lifesciences Ltd & Ors. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II, where delay was condoned.

2. The Revenue's representative opposed the condonation, arguing that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should not apply as the applicant knowingly approached the High Court first, bypassing the Tribunal. Reference was made to a similar case involving Team Global Logistics P Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-V, where condonation was denied.

3. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined the timeline of events. The adjudication order was received on 10.06.2016, and the High Court writ petition was filed on 29.06.2016. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had previously entertained a similar writ petition and granted relief, which influenced the applicant's decision to approach the High Court first. Considering this, the Tribunal found the applicant acted in good faith and was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. The Tribunal referred to its decision in Ncectar Lifesciences Ltd & Ors., where delay was condoned in a similar situation. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the applicant's genuine belief in seeking remedy before the High Court initially. The delay of 610 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was thus condoned.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, comprising Mr. Ashok Jindal and Mr. Bijay Kumar, allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal based on the applicant's bona fide belief and the precedent set in a similar case. The decision was in line with the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and previous Tribunal rulings, ultimately granting relief to the applicant.