Appeal dismissed as time-barred for delay in filing, conflicting jurisdiction claims rejected

The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a delay of two years and one hundred sixteen days in filing. The appellant's justification of confusion regarding territorial jurisdiction was rejected, as their previous appeal history contradicted this claim. The court found the appellant's explanation for initially filing in the wrong court lacking credibility, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay application and the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the High Court and the justification for seeking condonation of the delay.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed with a delay of two years and one hundred sixteen days against the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant claimed that the delay occurred due to initially filing the appeal before the Delhi High Court, which lacked territorial jurisdiction. The appellant argued for the condonation of delay based on the decision in M/S Canon Steels P. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs. However, the respondent contended that the act of filing the appeal before Delhi High Court was unjustified and amounted to forum hunting. The respondent relied on the judgment in Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement to support their stance against condoning the delay.

The appellant's counsel argued that there was confusion regarding the territorial jurisdiction for filing the appeal, leading to the appeal being filed in Delhi instead of Allahabad. However, the court found no merit in this argument as the appellant's firm had previously filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which was later taken to the Apex Court unsuccessfully. This fact undermined the appellant's claim of confusion regarding jurisdiction.

The court also noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for filing the appeal in Delhi High Court was an afterthought and lacked credibility. The delay in taking back the memo of appeal from Delhi High Court after the jurisdiction issue was raised further weakened the appellant's case for condonation of delay. The court concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained, and the claim of bonafide pursuit of remedy before Delhi High Court was unsubstantiated. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

---