9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the parties for final disposal of the petition. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 5-4-2011 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India. 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows : 3. The adjudicating authority had passed an order dated 29th March, 2004 confirming the certain duty and imposing penalty as well as personal penalties. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter, the Registry of the Tribunal did not handover the original papers of the appeal despite reminders from the petitioners. Eventually, petitioners presented their revision application before the Government of India on 18th December, 2009. Along with revision application, the petitioners also filed detailed affidavit explaining the ground of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th March, 2005, petitioners had shortly, thereafter, filed appeal before CESTAT. Such appeal was not only admitted, stay application of the petitioner was also allowed. It was only on 2nd February, 2009 that the CESTAT held that appeal was not maintainable. In that view of the matter, it can be stated that the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before a wrong forum though under bona fide beli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected its registry to return the papers for presentation before appropriate forum and the case of the petitioners is that such documents were not supplied, the entire issue has to be looked from the angle of the petitioners. Petitioners had bona fide filed their appeal before a forum which lacked jurisdiction. 7. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 5-4-2011 is quashed. Revisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
