✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 31 May 2011

M/s Riba Textiles Limited v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Ors.

CWP No. 4182 of 2011AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. In CWP No.4182 of 2011, prayer is, inter-alia, for quashing order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, respondent No.1 dated 13.12.2010 dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Against a demand raised under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962…
  • Para 44. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Even though strictly speaking, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter is to be gone into on merits. The delay…
  • Para 55. Accordingly, we allow these petitions, set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 8.8.2011. May 31, 2011 ‘gs’ (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting…

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. HPS Ghuman, Sr.Standing Counsel for Central Govt. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ.

1.

This order will dispose of CWP Nos.4182, 4338 and 4339 of 2011 as it is stated that all the three petitions involve common question. CWP No.4182 of 2011 2

2.

In CWP No.4182 of 2011, prayer is, inter-alia, for quashing order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, respondent No.1 dated 13.12.2010 dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. Against a demand raised under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner filed a revision petition under an erroneous belief which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation calculated from the date of dismissal of revision petition also. On this ground, the Tribunal held that the delay could not be condoned. At best, the petitioner could exclude the period for which remedy was pursued at a wrong forum.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Even though strictly speaking, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous, it will be in the interest of justice that the matter is to be gone into on merits. The delay calculated with reference to the order dismissing the revision petition is 22 days. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the delay should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits.

5.

Accordingly, we allow these petitions, set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 8.8.2011. May 31, 2011 ‘gs’ (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge CWP No.4182 of 2011 3

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Customs Act, 1962.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 31 May 2011. The bench was AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CWP No. 4182 of 2011). ← Search more judgments