AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o consideration the period spent in pursuing the remedy before this Court, can be sustained? 3. Brief facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are as follows :- [4. The petitioner was posted at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, Ahmedabad as Superintendent of Customs during the period from 2004 to 2005. On 19-4-2005 the petitioner was Batch-in-charge in the Customs Baggage Hall. The passenger named Shri Arif Vohra was diverted by him for detailed examination of his baggage, who could not have been considered to carry genuine baggage as he was carrying gold jewellery and other diamond articles valued at Rs. 12,31,141/-, which were seized and eventually confiscated. The petitioner being in-charge of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal on merits without being influenced by any observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 16-7-2008 [2009 (242) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. This Court vide its order dated 22-10-2008, thus had restored the appeal, which was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) as the amount of pre-deposit was already paid by the petitioner. 6. Commissioner (Appeals), after detailed examination of issue on merits imposed penalty on the petitioner and rejected the appeal on 24-6-2009 thereby. 7. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal, which, after hearing both the sides in detail, reserved its judgment. However, on the ground of jurisdiction it held the appeal not maintainable taking recourse to Section 129A of the Custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Court. 11. We have heard both the sides and also considered the material on record with the assistance of learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel Mr. Buch appearing for the respondent also has in terms agreed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would come into play as far as the time period spent before the High Court in Tax Appeal is concerned. 12. The short question that needs to be addressed to is as to whether the Revisional Authority, while considering the Revision Application of the petitioner, can choose to ignore the time period spent on Tax Appeal before this Court in calculating the period of 3 months in preferring the revision application. It appears that respondent No. 1 has erroneously relied on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted by the court under Rule 1 of that Order where such permission is granted on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction of the Court or other cause of like nature." Section 14 contained in part 3 of the Limitation Act does not relate to extension of the period of limitation but relates to exclusion of certain period while computing the period of limitation. The provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to a revision application preferred before the respondent and, therefore, the question as that requires. 12. It can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. As the matter in issue in the instant case is identical, petitioner since in good faith prosecuted its remedy before a wrong forum, while considering its application of revision and computing the period, the time spent before the High Court ought to have taken into account and if so done, the revision application preferred would be within the period of limitation of 90 days as statutorily mandated. The Revision Application has been preferred by the petitioner after the period of 2 years, 3 months and 12 days. If the period from 22-9-2009 to 6-8-2010 spent before the Tribunal and thereafter the period spent in pursuing the Tax Appeal, if is excluded, the revision application be....