2023 (11) TMI 975 - HC - Customs

Computation of period for filing appeal as time granted by the High Court - whether the word today mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench refers to the date on which the order was passed or to the date on which the order was issued to the petitioner (i.e., the date on which the order was made ready)? - Appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner will be able to file the appeal only when the order copy is received by them, otherwise, the respondent will not entertain the appeal. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the word today in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench has to be construed as the date on which the order was ready to issue. In such view of the matter, the word today mentioned in the said order refers to the date on which the order copy was issued to the petitioner . Hence, in the present case, since, the order copy was received by the petitioner only on 25.04.2013, the appeal, which was filed on 29.04.2013, was filed well within the period of limitation prescribed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The submission of the respondent that the impugned order, which was passed on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation, is not sustainable. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the aspect of limitation. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The interpretation of the word "today" in a court order regarding the timeline for filing an appeal.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the word "today" in the court order

The petitioner challenged an order by the respondent, contending that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner argued that the word "today" in the court order should be understood as the date the order copy was issued, not the date the order was passed. The respondent, however, maintained that "today" referred to the date of passing the order. The High Court analyzed the situation and concluded that the petitioner could only file the appeal upon receiving the order copy. Therefore, the word "today" in the court order was interpreted to mean the date the order copy was issued. As the appeal was filed within the time limit from the date of receiving the order copy, the High Court set aside the impugned order on the grounds of limitation.

In light of the above analysis, the High Court found the respondent's argument that the appeal was time-barred to be unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent on the basis of limitation. Additionally, it was highlighted that once an appeal is dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, the Appellate Authority cannot proceed to decide on the merits of the case. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order in its entirety and remitted the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs incurred.