Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: Justice Prevails

The majority opinion allowed the condonation of delay of 1236 days in filing the appeal, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach and citing the need for a liberal approach in such cases. The dissenting opinion, however, rejected the condonation of delay, alleging the applicant's lack of good faith and awareness of the correct appellate forum. Ultimately, the majority decision prevailed, and the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal and stay applications to proceed to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay of 1236 days in filing the appeal.
2. Jurisdiction of the appellate authority.
3. Bonafide belief and due diligence in prosecuting the remedy before the wrong forum.
4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
5. Malafide intent and abuse of process of law.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay of 1236 days in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the applicant's initial filing of a revision application before the Joint Secretary, which was later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant argued that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but due to reasons beyond their control, including the non-receipt of the dismissal order until 2012.

2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority:
The Customs department issued a show cause notice objecting to the availing of duty drawback by the applicant. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the notice, and the applicant filed a revision application before the Joint Secretary instead of an appeal before CESTAT. The Joint Secretary dismissed the revision application on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the appeal was maintainable before CESTAT.

3. Bonafide Belief and Due Diligence:
The applicant contended that they acted in good faith by approaching the Joint Secretary and were unaware of the correct appellate forum. They relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Ms. Katiji and Others, which advocates a liberal approach for condonation of delay. The applicant argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the delay was condoned.

4. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:
The applicant argued that the time spent in prosecuting the revision application before the wrong forum should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. They claimed that the delay occurred due to their bonafide belief that the revision application was the correct remedy.

5. Malafide Intent and Abuse of Process of Law:
The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that the applicant's actions were not in good faith and that they were aware of the correct appellate forum. The Revenue cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized the importance of prosecuting remedies before the correct forum and avoiding forum shopping.

Separate Judgments:
Majority Opinion (Condonation of Delay Allowed):
The majority opinion condoned the delay, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented approach. They noted that the applicant had filed the revision application within the limitation period and that the delay was primarily due to the non-receipt of the dismissal order. They also highlighted that the Customs department was aware of the revision application and did not advise the applicant to file an appeal before CESTAT. The majority opinion relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Ms. Katiji and Others, which advocates a liberal approach for condonation of delay.

Dissenting Opinion (Condonation of Delay Rejected):
The dissenting opinion rejected the condonation of delay, arguing that the applicant's actions were not in good faith and that they were aware of the correct appellate forum. The dissenting opinion emphasized that the applicant had engaged in dilatory tactics and had abused the process of law. They cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized the importance of prosecuting remedies before the correct forum and avoiding forum shopping.

Final Order:
In view of the majority order, the delay of 1236 days in filing the appeal was condoned, and the COD application was allowed. The appeal and stay applications were directed to be heard on merits.

---