TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the appellant preferred Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide Writ Petition No. 3664 of 1987 in September, 1987 and the said petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 18-3-2010 with a direction to the appellant to file an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. In the event of filing the appeal, the appellate authority shall consider the same on its own merits considering the fact that the petition was pending in this court. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 9-4-2010 along with an application for condonation of delay of 16 years and 8 months. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed his appeal on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the decision of this Tribunal in the case of IVP Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported in 2011 (22) S.T.R. 374 (Tri.-Mum.) = 2009 (246) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal). He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). 4. Heard both sides. 5. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the following facts are not in dispute that the Order-in-Original was passed on 21-8-1987 and the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in September, 1987 and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had disposed the Writ Petition on 18-3-2010 with a direction to the appellant to file ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Section 128 of the Customs Act, an appeal could have been preferred within three months from the date of communication to the appellants of the decision or order appealed against and even the powers of the Collector of Excise and delay was restricted to another three months and since the appeal was filed after more than six months from 16-2-1976, it was barred by limitation. The appellant preferred a revision to the Govt. of India and the same was also dismissed on 21-12-1978 affirming the decision of the appellate authority. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Writ Petition praying for quashing the order dated 16-2-1976, and the orders of the Appellate Collector and the Government of India dismissing the appeal and revision, respectivel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants would go without a decision on merits. It is in those circumstances the learned counsel at one stage also contended that if for any reason, we are of the view that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act could not be invoked, we should decide the question on merits and not to dismiss the same as any such dismissal will do the appellants great injustice though on facts, the "appellants were found to have been bona fide pursuing in a wrong forum for a remedy. Since we have come to the conclusion that Section 14(2) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, we refrain from going into the merits of the appeal. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) as extension of time of 30 days has already been given for condoning the delay subject to satisfaction and not beyond that. Further, in the case of IVP Ltd. (supra), the appeal was filed before this Tribunal and this Tribunal considered the fact that Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court was withdrawn by the appellant with liberty to approach the CESTAT about its delayed filing. Therefore, the facts of the said case are not relevant to the facts of this case. In the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), the appeal was filed after 21 months from the date of the services of the order dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In this case, the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) with delay of 21 months and Commis....