2003 (5) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to choosing the wrong forum.
2. Condonation of delay based on bona fide mistake.
3. Applicability of relevant legal citations in condoning the delay.
4. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the appellant mistakenly filed it before CEGAT based on the preamble of the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the appellant rectified the mistake by filing the appeal before the correct authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), before the dismissal by CEGAT. The issue was whether the delay could be condoned due to the genuine mistake in choosing the wrong forum.

2. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned based on the bona fide mistake in selecting the forum for appeal filing. They relied on legal precedents, including a Tribunal judgment in the case of Steel Authority of India and Tembe Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., which held that pursuing a remedy in another forum by mistake is a valid ground for condoning the delay. The appellant sought a remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits of the case.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation of delay, citing an Apex Court judgment in the case of Ramagowda and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, which considered negligence, gross inaction, and lack of bona fide as reasons to dismiss an appeal on grounds of time-bar.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and legal citations presented by both parties. It concluded that the appellant's mistake in choosing the wrong forum was a genuine error and not due to negligence or lack of bona fide. The Tribunal emphasized that choosing a wrong forum by bona fide mistake is a valid ground for condoning the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was condoned, and the appeal was allowed by remanding it to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the case after granting a hearing to the appellant. The stay application and early hearing application were also disposed of accordingly.