JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. These appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenge a common order dated 19 July, 2022, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, “CESTAT”) whereby interim applications filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been rejected, only on the reasoning as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the impugned order which reads thus:-

“2.1 From the applications, it is evident that the applicant is seeking indulgence of this Tribunal for condoning the delay of 1708 days in filing these appeals. No justifiable ground has been stated in the applications filed.”

2. This appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:-

“a. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CESTAT erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous Application, seeking condonation of delay, bearing Appeal Diary No. 852552021, when the Appellant under a bona fide belief had filed the Revision Application before the Revisionary Authority ?

b. Whether the Ld. CESTAT was bound to condone the period undergone before the Revisionary Authority under a bona fide belief and the Appellant had acted diligently in pursuing such remedy ?”

3. It is the case of the appellant that he is carrying on business in sale of motor vehicles, its parts and accessories. A show cause notice dated 12 August, 2011 was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The show cause notice was adjudicated by an Order-in- Original dated 24 July, 2014 passed by the adjudicating authority, whereby a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- came to be imposed on the appellant.

4. The appellant had assailed the Order-in-Original in an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellate authority by an order dated 16 March, 2016, rejected the appeal and by not interfering the Order-in-Original. It is the case of the appellant that under a bonafide belief, the appellant had approached the revisionary authority to challenge the said order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). He filed the revision application against the said order before the revisional authority on 09 May, 2016. On 14 December, 2020, the revisional authority rejected the revision application of the appellant on the ground that the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the revision application as the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in appeal, was an order, which was appealable before the CESTAT. Disposing of the said revision application, an order came to be passed on 06 January, 2021. Thereafter the appellant immediately i.e. on 22 January, 2021 filed an appeal against the order in appeal before the CESTAT, along with an application praying for condonation of delay of the time spent by the appellant before the wrong forum i.e. the revisional authority.

5. The CESTAT, however, by the impugned order dated 19 July, 2022, dismissed the interim application filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay on the sole ground as noted by us above. Copy of the order was received by the appellant on 12 August, 2022 and thereafter the appellant has approached this Court in the present proceedings by challenging the interim orders passed by the CESTAT.

6. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the impugned order would contend that the sole ground, as set out in the impugned order to reject the appellant’s delay condonation application, is completely untenable considering the facts of the case. It is submitted that the CESTAT has not taken into consideration that the appellant was bonafide pursuing the revision application before the revisional authority and in these circumstances, certainly, considering the settled principles of law, that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would save the limitation, in the appellant pursuing the appropriate remedy of an appeal before