TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum under bona fide belief would fall under exclusion clause as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act - when the Tribunal directed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing penalty as well as personal penalties. The petitioners challenged such order before the appellate Commissioner. Petitioners appeal was dismissed on 16-3-2005. Against the order of the appellate Commissioner, the petitioner preferred further appeal before CESTAT on 31-5-2005. Along with the appeal, the petitioners had also prayed for stay. Such stay application was partially allowed. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also filed detailed affidavit explaining the ground of delay and praying for entertaining the revision application on merits ignoring delay. Revisional Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 5-4-2011 dismissed the revision only on the ground of delay without going into merits. In the order, it was recorded that the order-in-appeal was passed on 16-3-2005 and communicated to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emedy before a wrong forum though under bona fide belief. Surely, the time spent in pursuing such remedy cannot be ignored while considering the question of limitation or delay caused in filing the revision application. In the revisional order, we do not find any mention or reference to such proceedings and the detail affidavit on behalf of the petitioners explaining the grounds why the revision w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
