The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the statutory limitation period and that the appellate authority had no power to condone the delay beyond the period specifically prescribed under law.
The bench of Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) has referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy, which reiterated that limitation provisions are founded on public policy and that courts cannot adopt a liberal approach that defeats statutory limitation requirements. The judgment emphasized that delay-condonation applications must be decided strictly on the parameters prescribed by law and not on the merits of the underlying dispute.
BUY NOW: Customs Duty Judgements E-Compilation – May 2026
The controversy arose after the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the appellant had filed the appeal beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellate authority observed that the Order-in-Original had been passed on December 26, 2022 and dispatched through registered post on December 31, 2022. Since there was no evidence indicating that the order had been returned undelivered, it was presumed to have been served within a reasonable period.
Based on this presumption, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appeal was filed far beyond the permissible limitation period and could not be entertained.
Before the Tribunal, the principal issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) could be condoned.
The Bench referred to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, which mandates that an appeal must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. The provision further allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone a delay of only one additional month if sufficient cause is shown.
The Tribunal noted that once the statutory period and the additional condonable period expire, the Commissioner (Appeals) becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Since the appellant had filed the appeal beyond this maximum permissible period, the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was legally justified.
During the proceedings, the Tribunal had earlier directed the Revenue to produce dispatch records establishing the mode of service of the Order-in-Original. In compliance, the Department furnished dispatch documents showing that the adjudication order had been sent through registered post on December 31, 2022.
After examining the records, the Tribunal held that the evidence sufficiently established dispatch of the order and supported the conclusion that the order would ordinarily have been delivered within a few days.
The Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, where the apex court held that appellate authorities created by statute cannot condone delays beyond the period expressly permitted by the legislature. The Supreme Court had clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where the statute itself prescribes an outer limit for condonation.
Further support was drawn from Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., where the Supreme Court underscored that explanations offered for delayed filing cannot override express statutory limitations, particularly where the legislature has fixed an outer limit for filing appeals.
After considering the statutory framework and the Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). It concluded that the appeal had been filed beyond the maximum condonable period and that no legal basis existed to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by M/s Awadesh was dismissed.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
