9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of communication to the applicant of the order challenged. However, it may be mentioned that the well settled proposition of law that even if a statute imposes embargo upon power of an authority to condone the delay by providing a specific period up to which such delay can be condoned, nonetheless, the time spent by the applicant in prosecuting wrong proceedings which are bonafide with due diligence can be excluded while computing the period of limitation, cannot be ignored. The High Court of Bombay while discussing MP. STEEL CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT] had observed that the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which were based on advancing the cause of justice would apply to exclude time taken in prosecuting proceedings which were bonafide and with due diligence pursued, which ultimately ended without a decision on the merits of the case. It is not in dispute that against the order dated 14.02.2003, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Tribunal within time. This appeal remained pending till 08.03.2004 and it was only then on that day that it was held to be not maintainable. No decision had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excise Department on 04.10.1995 and 07.03.1996 on the allegation that the credit taken on DM170 was irregular as no manufacturing activity was undertaken at Ballabhgarh. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notices. However, vide order dated 01.05.1996, the Collector of the Central Excise Department upheld the stand taken by the department while holding that the petitioner was entitled to rebate of duty paid at Nabha on DMI-13. The petitioner thereafter, filed rebate claims on 17.05.1996 with the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Patiala seeking rebate of the duty paid for an amount of Rs.18,03,484/- in respect of exports made by it during the period of March, 1995 to September, 1995. Due to some jurisdictional problem, its rebate claim was not decided by the said authority. Deputy Commissioner, Patiala passed an order dated 24.08.2001, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of rebate. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent No. 2, who vide order dated 14.02.2003 rejected its claim. 3. It was further submitted by the petitioner that aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2, it filed an appeal before the Tribunal whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... late authority. While controverting the remaining pleas, dismissal of the petition had been prayed for. 6. The petitioner also filed rejoinder by way of affidavit to the written statement controverting the pleas taken therein. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that order dated 23.09.2004 was liable to be quashed as it was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Respondent No. 1 while passing this order had ignored the fact that in application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application, the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the period which was spent from the date of filing of appeal before the Tribunal till 08.03.2004 when this appeal was dismissed, was not to be counted for the purpose of calculation of period of limitation. Respondent No. 1 also ignored that even the tribunal had specifically held that the period for which appeal had been pursued before it was not to be counted. He argued that respondent No. 1 wrongly held that no convincing reason had been given by the petitioner for pursuing the matter before the Tribunal. He submitted that the remedy before respondent No. 2 had been bonafidely pursued by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of communication of the order to the applicant and as per proviso to Section 35EE (2), if the Central Government is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by any sufficient cause for presenting the revision application within the period of 3 months, it may allow the same to be presented within a further period of 3 months. Meaning thereby that as per provision of Section 35EE, a revision application could not be entertained beyond the maximum period of 6 months from the date of communication to the applicant of the order challenged. However, it may be mentioned that the well settled proposition of law that even if a statute imposes embargo upon power of an authority to condone the delay by providing a specific period up to which such delay can be condoned, nonetheless, the time spent by the applicant in prosecuting wrong proceedings which are bonafide with due diligence can be excluded while computing the period of limitation, cannot be ignored. In this regard, we draw reliance upon M. P. Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(319) E.L.T. 373 (SC) wherein Apex Court held that though there was no power to condone the delay in filing application under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and others, 2015(316) E.L.T. 578 wherein, while considering the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in the proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act, 1962 ), it was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act was applicable to the proceedings under the Act, 1962 in respect of the appeal provided under Section 128 and the time spent in the High Court in abortive attempt to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution will have to be excluded. It was observed that bonafide of the petitioner in pursuing the remedy under Article 226 were never in dispute in that case. Similar proposition of law was laid down by the High Court of Gujarat in Choice Laboratory Ltd Vs. Union of India, 2013 (315) ELT 197. 13. The ratio of law as laid down in the above cited cases is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner in this case had filed appeal against order dated 14.02.2003 before respondent No. 2 though the said order was required to be challenged by filing revision application before respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that against the order dated 14.02.2003, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Tribunal wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
