9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -11-79. Government, under letter dated 29-12-79 intimated the appellant s that their remedy was to file an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector to the concerned Appellate Collector of Central Excise and not by revision. Thereafter on 19-3-80, the appellants had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector which had been dismissed under order dated 15-7-80 on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. It is against the said order that the appellants had preferred a revision petition to the Government which, on transfer, is being dealt with and disposed of under this order as an appeal before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri .D.N. Kohli, Consultant for the appellants and Shri K.D. Tayal, SDR for the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of limitation for preferring the appeal and if that exclusion is allowed, appeal before the Appellate Collector would be found to have been filed within time. 5. Section 14 of the Limitation Act reads as follows : Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction: (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Date when revision petition was filed 22-11-79 (3) Date of return of the revision petition 29-12-79 (4) Date when the appeal was received by the Collector (Appeals) 21-3-80 Shri Tayal points out that under the provisions of Sec. 14, the period that could be excluded in computing limitation for the appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) would be between 12-11-79 to 29-12-79. He, therefore, contends that if the period 23-11-78 to 21-3-80 is taken into consideration and the period 12-11-79 to 20-12-79 is excluded therefrom, the balance would be still very much more than the period of limitation within which the appeal should have been filed and hence even applying Sec. 14, the appeal against the order of the Assistant C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken for taking all indispensable and preparatory steps to institute proceedings which ultimately prove to be fruitless. He, therefore, contended that on the basis of the said observation, the entire period between 23-11-78 and 12-11-79 should also be excluded, under Sec. 14 apart from the period from 12-11-79 and 29-12-79. 9. In the present case we have already noted that the appellants had received a copy of the Assistant Collector on 23-11-78, They have filed a revision petition to the Government against the said order on 12-11-79 i.e. after expiry of nearly 111/2 months after receipt of the order. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that this time would have been required for taking the indispensable and preparatory steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
