Dismissal of Delay Application and Appeal due to Forum Choice and Dilatory Tactics

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of a 1236-day delay due to the appellant's deliberate choice of the wrong forum and wilful dilatory tactics. Despite substantial demands under the Customs Act, the appellant failed to diligently pursue remedies, indicating a lack of genuine intent. The Tribunal found no merit in entertaining the application, leading to the dismissal of the condonation of delay application, stay application, and appeal.

---

---

Issues: Delay in seeking remedy, wilful dilatory tactics, incorrect forum selection, condonation of delay

The judgment pertains to a case where an application for condonation of delay was made due to a delay of 1236 days in seeking remedy. The applicant had initially approached the revisionary authority against an order of adjudication, which was not the correct remedy available. Subsequently, the applicant filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court after the revisionary authority dismissed the application. The High Court, in its dismissal on 06.11.2012, allowed the petitioner to pursue available remedies in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal noted that seeking remedies in different forums could be a reason for condoning delay, but in this case, it was observed as a deliberate attempt at wilful dilatory tactics by the appellant. The Tribunal cited the apex court's ruling in Ketan V. Parekh vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement-2012 (28) STR 195(SC) to highlight the appellant's deliberate choice of the wrong forum, causing prejudice to the Revenue's interests. Despite facing substantial demands under the Customs Act, the appellant failed to diligently follow up on the status of their application before the revisionary authority, indicating a lack of genuine intent.

Based on the above observations, the Tribunal found no merit in entertaining the application for condonation of the 1236-day delay. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay, as well as the stay application and appeal, were dismissed by the Tribunal. The judgment was pronounced in open court by Mr. D.N. Panda.

---