TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review an order condoning delay in presenting the appeal - Decided against revenue with cost. - No.ST/ROM/61157/2013 in ST/57583/2013 - Misc. Order No. ST/51078/2014-CU(DB) - Dated:- 12-3-2014 - Mr. G Raghuram and Mr Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B L Narasimhan, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, DR JUDGEMENT Per: G Raghuram: This is an application preferred by Revenue (respondent in the substantive appeal), seeking review/rectification of the order dated 19.8.2013 passed in COD Application No.58150/2013, whereby delay of nine days was condoned, for reasons recorded therein. 2. The assessee filed the appeal with a delay of nine days. The application see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court expounding the view that the practice of non-exhaustion of an efficacious alternate remedy before the CESTAT and pursuing litigation before a High Court amounts to abuse of the process of law, commonly known as forum shopping. 4. At the hearing today, Shri Govind Dixit, ld. DR vehemently and elaborately reiterated Revenue's pleadings and referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in Ketan V. Parekh, Ambica Industries and Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra). 5. In Chhabil Dass Agrawal (supra), the Apex Court considered the issue whether the High Court was justified in interfering with an order passed by the Assessing authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (exercising jurisdiction under Article 226) when a statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rates in a principal and regional Benches and in circumstances an appeal from its decision could facially be preferred before more than one High Court. The principles for identifying the appropriate High Court where an appeal could be preferred are spelt out in this judgement. In Ketan V. Parekh (supra), validity of an order of the High Court rejecting applications for condonation of delay along with appeals filed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), against an order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange was in issue. Before the High Court, condonation of a delay of 1056 days was sought. The High Court dismissed this application observing that it does not have power to entertain the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If this be the position on merits, even if no appeal were preferred, the assessed liability, which is exempted, could not be collected. 8. This application seeking rectification/review of the order dated 19.8.2013, condoning a delay of nine days, for the detailed reasons recorded therein, is clearly a fundamentally misconceived and frivolous application. We are burdened with a huge pendency. It is regrettable that not only are such frivolous applications filed by Revenue but are even argued by DR's at great length and unmerited vehemence. There is also no provision, conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review an order condoning delay in presenting the appeal. 9. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
