1992 (7) TMI 170 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal for computing the limitation period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
The primary issue raised was whether the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal. The Junior Departmental Representative argued that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-1 Collectorate, and therefore, the appeal should lie with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and not the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the appellants conceded this point, acknowledging that the appeal was filed before the Tribunal by inadvertence.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
The appellants contended that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 29 of the Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a case in good faith in a court that lacks jurisdiction. The appellants cited several judgments to support their claim, including:
- V.P. Misra and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow and Others.
- Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madan Lal Das & Sons.
- Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
- Anjan Choudhury v. Anandaneer Co-operative Registered Housing Society and Others.

The Tribunal noted that under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the time spent in prosecuting the appeal before the wrong forum could be excluded if the proceedings were prosecuted with due diligence and good faith. However, the determination of good faith and due diligence is a matter for the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide.

3. Exclusion of Time Spent in Prosecuting the Appeal Before the Tribunal:
The appellants requested that the Tribunal make an observation that the period spent in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal should be excluded when computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, declined to make such an observation, stating that it falls within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The Tribunal referenced several judgments to support this position, including:
- The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madan Lal Das & Sons, which held that the time taken in prosecuting an appeal before the wrong forum should be excluded for the purpose of limitation.
- The Supreme Court's decision in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, which discussed the applicability of the Limitation Act to special laws.

The Tribunal concluded that it is not within its purview to make an observation regarding the exclusion of time spent before it, as this is a matter for the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide. The appeal and the stay petition were returned to the appellants for presentation before the proper forum.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal determined that the appeal was not maintainable before it and should be presented before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). It declined to make an observation regarding the exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, leaving this determination to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appeal and stay petition were returned to the appellants for presentation before the appropriate authority.