High Court dismisses appeals due to filing delay & forum choice error. Emphasizes adherence to timelines & correct forums.

The appeals against Central Excise orders were dismissed by the High Court due to a delay in filing and choosing the wrong forum. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and utilizing appropriate forums for legal remedies. The petitioner's argument regarding the delay being due to choosing the wrong forum initially was not considered, and the Court suggested challenging the order before the appellate Tribunal. The Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy through the appellate Tribunal and dismissing the case without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Appeals against Central Excise orders dismissed due to delay in filing and choice of wrong forum.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals filed against orders of the Central Excise authorities. The appeals against the first respondent's orders were allowed, while those against the second respondent, a Joint Commissioner, were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the appeals against the second respondent should have been filed before the first respondent-Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Subsequently, the petitioner filed appeals before the first respondent, who dismissed them as time-barred due to a delay of 92 days, beyond the permissible 90-day limit for condonation of delay.

The petitioner argued that the delay was due to choosing the wrong forum initially, and sought the exclusion of the time spent in the wrong forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the first respondent did not consider this aspect in the order dated 17-11-2006. The Court refrained from commenting on this submission, suggesting that the impugned order could be challenged before the appellate Tribunal, where all the arguments raised by the petitioner could also be presented.

The Court noted that an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner through the appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the Writ Petition and dismissed it, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and utilizing appropriate forums for legal remedies, highlighting the significance of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

---