Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 491 - HC - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing the appeals - condonation of period undergone before the Revisionary Authority under a bona fide belief and the Appellant had acted diligently in pursuing such remedy - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the CESTAT was passed in the absence of the appellant as seen from the appearance as noted in the impugned order. It is also required to be noted that assailing the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (16 March, 2016), 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 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 - The object and purpose of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is that the litigant ought not to suffer by a delay is caused in bona fide and in good faith pursuing the proceedings against orders which adversely affect the litigant before a wrong forum. This is a fit case where the appellant having pursued the revisional proceedings and that too bona fide and in good faith, as it is not a case of the revenue that there was any other intention on the part of the appellant in pursuing the revision proceedings the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned by the CESTAT. Thus, these factual circumstances being quite apparent, as also the clear position of applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, to the facts of the case was completely overlooked by the CESTAT, in adjudicating the interim application filed by the appellant, in dismissing the appellant’s interim applications. The questions answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue.
|