9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot returned to the petitioners for presentation before the appropriate forum even after several reminders - Held that: - The time spent in prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum under bona fide belief would fall under exclusion clause as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act - when the Tribunal directed its registry to return the papers for presentation before appropriate forum and the case of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29th March, 2004 confirming the certain duty and imposing penalty as well as personal penalties. The petitioners challenged such order before the appellate Commissioner. Petitioners' appeal was dismissed on 16-3-2005. Against the order of the appellate Commissioner, the petitioner preferred further appeal before CESTAT on 31-5-2005. Along with the appeal, the petitioners had also prayed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 2009. Along with revision application, the petitioners also filed detailed affidavit explaining the ground of delay and praying for entertaining the revision application on merits ignoring delay. Revisional Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 5-4-2011 dismissed the revision only on the ground of delay without going into merits. In the order, it was recorded that the order-in-appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, it can be stated that the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before a wrong forum though under bona fide belief. Surely, the time spent in pursuing such remedy cannot be ignored while considering the question of limitation or delay caused in filing the revision application. In the revisional order, we do not find any mention or reference to such proceedings and the detail affidavit on beh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
