Appeal delay excused by CESTAT due to wrong forum approach, timely action post directive. The delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT was condoned by the Judicial Member, who found that the delay was not deliberate but a result of approaching ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal delay excused by CESTAT due to wrong forum approach, timely action post directive.
The delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT was condoned by the Judicial Member, who found that the delay was not deliberate but a result of approaching the wrong forum with the revision petition. The appellant filed the appeal promptly upon receiving the directive from the Revisionary Authority. The Judicial Member considered the circumstances and concluded that the time spent pursuing the case before the incorrect forum should be excluded. As a result, the delay was condoned, and the case was instructed to be listed accordingly.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT.
Analysis: The applicant sought condonation of a 1745-day delay in filing the appeal, explaining that being a Sri Lankan resident, she was intercepted at the airport, leading to the seizure of a gold chain and subsequent confiscation and penalty imposition. The appeal process involved filing with the Commissioner (Appeals), followed by a revision application under the Right to Information Act, and eventually, a directive from the Revisionary Authority to appeal before CESTAT. The appellant filed the appeal within a week of receiving the Revisionary Authority's order, citing no deliberate delay but attributing the tardiness to the revision application. The counsel referenced a Bombay High Court decision to support excluding time spent in bona fide appeal pursuit before an incorrect forum under the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Assistant Commissioner contested the delay application, citing the significant delay in filing the appeal.
Upon reviewing the submissions, the Judicial Member observed that the delay was not deliberate but resulted from approaching the wrong forum with the revision petition. The Revisionary Authority's delayed disposal of the revision petition led to directing the appellant to appeal before CESTAT, prompting the appellant to file the appeal within a week of the directive. Considering these circumstances, the Judicial Member concluded that the time spent pursuing the case before the incorrect forum should be excluded. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the Registry was instructed to list the case accordingly.
The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 18/12/2018.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
