2019 (1) TMI 1045 - AT - Customs

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 ... Condonation of delay of 1745 days in filing - delay occurred on account of the revision application before the Revisionary Authority - Section 14 of Limitation Act - Held that:- The delay in this case is not deliberate and intentional but the same has occurred on account of the fact that the appellant has approached the wrong forum by filing the revision petition before the Revisionary Authority and the Revisionary Authority after four years has disposed of the revision petition directing the appellant to file the appeal before the CESTAT and thereafter from the decision of the original authority, the appellant has filed the present appeal within a period of one week. The time taken in pursuing the case before the wrong forum has to be excluded and after excluding the same, it is found that the appeal has been filed within a week from the receipt of the order of the Revisionary Authority. Delay condoned - CO application allowed. 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.