2022 (12) TMI 322

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the appellant's application, being Application Diary No.850562022 (Appeal Diary No.850732022), seeking condonation of delay of 2,159 days in filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay, when the appellant under a bonafide belief had filed Revision Application before Revisionary Authority ?" 3. By consent of the parties, Appeal is taken up for final disposal. 4. It is the appellant's case that Order-in-Original dated 27th May 2014 was passed against the appellant by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), R & I Division, Mumbai, imp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as that the delay was unintentional as majority of the time was spent before the revisional forum under a bonafide belief that revision application against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was the correct forum under the Customs Act to agitate his case against levy of penalty. 7. Mr. Brijesh Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned order dated 3rd March 2022 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, Regional Bench, (CESTAT) in Appeal Diary No.850732022 is bad in law inasmuch as the appellate authority has failed to apply the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act or the principles analogues thereto to the case at hand. The learned counsel for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supported the findings arrived at by the CESTAT in the impugned order and further submits that the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration all the circumstances under which the application had been filed. He further supports the findings in the impugned order that sufficient cause was not shown by the appellant, and taking us through the application for condonation of delay and statements made therein, and contends that there are no facts pleaded in the application to show that the revision proceedings were prosecuted diligently and in a bonafide manner. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay filed before the CESTAT, we are of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... approach will have to be adopted and the provisions will have to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element of mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section 14. In fact, the section is intended to provide relief against the bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection of a wrong forum. On reading Section 14 of the Act, it becomes clear that the legislature has enacted the said section to exempt a certain period covered by a bona fide litigious activity. Upon the words used in the section, it is not possible to sustain the interpretation that the principle underlying the said section, namely, that the bar of limitation should not ....