TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. ORDER Heard. 2. In our opinion, the initial filing of writ petition by the petitioner before the Delhi High Court against the order in original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur was not at all bone fide. The Delhi High Court, however, converted the writ petition into statutory appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 by order dated November 9, 2009. On Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Limitation Act. 4. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and also dismissed the appeal as time barred. It said : 2013 (296) E.L.T. 310 "21. In the present case also as in the case of Ketan v. Parekh (Supra), the appellant was assisted and had the services of the counsel's, who are expert in the central excise and customs cases. They first filed a writ p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appellant was pursuing the remedies in wrong court with due diligence. The appellant, thereafter, caused a further delay of 20 days in filing this appeal, which he has not explained. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This appeal is ba....