2023 (8) TMI 491 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing the appeals - condonation of period undergone before the Revisionary Authority under a bona fide belief and the Appellant had acted diligently in pursuing such remedy - HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the CESTAT was passed in the absence of the appellant as seen from the appearance as noted in the impugned order. It is also required to be noted that assailing the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (16 March 2016) the appellant being under a bona fide belief had approached the revisional authority by filing a revision application on 09 May 2016 which came to be rejected after a period of almost more than 4 years i.e. on 14 December 2020. In assailing the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant was not sleeping over his rights. The revisional authority was however of the opinion that the revision proceedings as filed by the appellant were not maintainable as the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to file an appeal before the CESTAT. In this view of the matter the revisional authority disposed of the revisional proceedings permitting the appellant to avail of the remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. When a litigant like the appellant bona fide adopts a remedy which is not appropriate remedy Section 14 of the Limitation Act would certainly come to the aid of such litigant - The object and purpose of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is that the litigant ought not to suffer by a delay is caused in bona fide and in good faith pursuing the proceedings against orders which adversely affect the litigant before a wrong forum. This is a fit case where the appellant having pursued the revisional proceedings and that too bona fide and in good faith as it is not a case of the revenue that there was any other intention on the part of the appellant in pursuing the revision proceedings the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned by the CESTAT. Thus these factual circumstances being quite apparent as also the clear position of applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the facts of the case was completely overlooked by the CESTAT in adjudicating the interim application filed by the appellant in dismissing the appellant s interim applications. The questions answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include challenging a common order dated 19 July, 2022, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, regarding the rejection of interim applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The appellant, engaged in the sale of motor vehicles, parts, and accessories, received a show cause notice in 2011 leading to a penalty imposed in 2014. Subsequent appeals were made, with the appellant approaching the revisional authority in 2016, which was rejected in 2020. The appellant then filed an appeal before the CESTAT in 2021, seeking condonation of delay due to pursuing the wrong forum earlier. The CESTAT dismissed the application in 2022, prompting the appellant to challenge the decision.

Issue 2: Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act
The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the revisional authority had directed the appellant to approach the CESTAT. The appellant contended that pursuing the revision application in good faith should exclude the time spent before the wrong forum from the limitation period. The appellant cited relevant case law to support their position.

Analysis:
The Court found merit in the appellant's arguments, noting that the impugned order was passed ex-parte and without considering the appellant's bona fide belief in pursuing the revision application. The Court highlighted the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the case, emphasizing that the appellant should not be penalized for diligently pursuing legal remedies, even if it led to delays in approaching the correct forum. The Court referenced previous decisions where similar legal principles were upheld, supporting the appellant's position.

Conclusion:
The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the impugned order and directing the appeals to be registered before the CESTAT for adjudication without objections on limitation. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing litigants to access the appropriate legal forums without undue hindrances due to procedural delays.