2020 (5) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - present appeal was filed by the assessee himself whereas the proper remedy was to file revision petition before the appropriate authority - condonation of delay caused due to filing of this appeal before the wrong forum - HELD THAT - The assertion of the Learned Advocate for the appellant is found to be true since the appeal has been filed wrongly before this forum whereas the proper remedy was to approach the Revisional Authority. Hence, the appeal is required to be rejected as not maintainable before this forum. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MP. STEEL CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT has categorically held that the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the proceedings even before quasi-judicial authorities and accordingly, had directed the Commissioner (Appeals), who had rejected the appeal of the assessee therein as time-barred, to decide the case on merits. The appeal is held as not maintainable and the original orders of lower authorities, if filed, may be returned to the appellant for his benefit - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed in wrong forum - Maintainability of appeal before Appellate Tribunal.
2. Proper remedy for the appellant - Filing revision petition before the appropriate authority.
3. Application of principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in quasi-judicial proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2018-TRY (CUS) dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli. The Learned Advocate for the appellant acknowledged that the appeal was filed in the wrong forum and the proper remedy was to file a revision petition before the appropriate authority. The appeal was found to be not maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal due to being filed in the wrong forum.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s. M.P. Steel Corporation highlighted the application of the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to quasi-judicial proceedings. The appellant was advised to approach the Revisional Authority and rely on the Supreme Court's decision to seek condonation of delay caused by filing the appeal in the wrong forum. The appellant was reminded of the liberty to approach the appropriate Appellate/Revisional Authority for remedies, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures.

3. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the case, concluded that the appeal was not maintainable before them due to being filed in the wrong forum. The original orders of the lower authorities were directed to be returned to the appellant for his benefit. The decision was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the importance of following the correct legal procedures and approaching the appropriate authority for remedies.