9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6), the appellant being under a bona fide belief, had approached the revisional authority, by filing a revision application on 09 May, 2016 which came to be rejected after a period of almost more than 4 years i.e. on 14 December, 2020. In assailing the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant was not sleeping over his rights. The revisional authority was however of the opinion that the revision proceedings as filed by the appellant were not maintainable, as the appropriate remedy for the appellant was to file an appeal before the CESTAT. In this view of the matter, the revisional authority disposed of the revisional proceedings, permitting the appellant to avail of the remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. When a litigant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mumbai (for short, "CESTAT") whereby interim applications filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been rejected, only on the reasoning as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the impugned order which reads thus:- "2.1 From the applications, it is evident that the applicant is seeking indulgence of this Tribunal for condoning the delay of 1708 days in filing these appeals. No justifiable ground has been stated in the applications filed." 2. This appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:- "a. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CESTAT erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous Application, seeking condonation of delay, bearing Appeal Diary No. 852552021, when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to decide the revision application as the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in appeal, was an order, which was appealable before the CESTAT. Disposing of the said revision application, an order came to be passed on 06 January, 2021. Thereafter the appellant immediately i.e. on 22 January, 2021 filed an appeal against the order in appeal before the CESTAT, along with an application praying for condonation of delay of the time spent by the appellant before the wrong forum i.e. the revisional authority. 5. The CESTAT, however, by the impugned order dated 19 July, 2022, dismissed the interim application filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay on the sole ground as noted by us above. Copy of the order was rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the CESTAT in the proceedings of Shailesh D. Rediji Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Customs Defect Appeal Diary No. 870332021, condoned the delay of 2004 days. He has also placed reliance on another decision of the CESTAT in Taufeeq Abdul Rasheed Qureshi Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), being Miscellaneous Order No. M/85468/2021 dated 21 October, 2021 in which delay of 1657 days was condoned in similar circumstances. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Kantaria, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the proceedings, would not dispute that on the only reasoning as set out in the impugned order, the appellant's applications are rejected by the CESTAT. Analysis:- 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like the appellant bona fide adopts a remedy which is not appropriate remedy, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would certainly come to the aid of such litigant. Section 14 of the Limitation Act reads thus:- "14. 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 entertain it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fide and in good faith pursuing the proceedings against orders which adversely affect the litigant before a wrong forum. It is in these circumstances, the law would provide that the proceedings would be required to be held maintainable by the delay being condoned by application of Section 14, so that the litigant is not kept away from the doors of the appropriate forum, on the ground that the proceedings are time barred. If the doors of the appropriate forum are closed on such ground, it would amount to travesty of justice and defeating the very right of a party to approach the proper forum as also rendering the object of Section 14 of the Limitation Act otiose. 13. In our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant having pursued th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
