The Bangalore Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no statutory power to condone delay beyond the additional 30-day period prescribed under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, even if the delay is only of two days. 

The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and R. Bhagya Devi(Technical Member) has observed that  the statutory scheme under Section 128(1) clearly limits the condonable period. Since the appeal had been filed even after expiry of the extended 30-day period, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting it as time-barred. 

The dispute arose from an order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, whereby the assessee’s appeal against the adjudication order dated 03.11.2023 was dismissed on limitation grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the adjudication order had been served on the appellant on 15.11.2023, a fact admitted by the appellant itself in Form CA-1 as well as in the delay condonation application. 

Under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, an appeal is required to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. The proviso empowers the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay only for a further period of 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. 

Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that there were sufficient reasons for the delay and that the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have condoned the delay of merely two days. However, the Department contended that once the appeal was filed beyond the additional condonable period of 30 days, the appellate authority became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 

While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, wherein the apex court held that appellate authorities created under fiscal statutes cannot invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays beyond the statutorily prescribed period. 

The Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises had categorically ruled that where the statute specifically prescribes a maximum condonable period, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to extend the limitation further. The Tribunal reproduced the relevant observations of the apex court emphasizing that the legislature intended to completely exclude application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act beyond the prescribed condonable period. 

The CESTAT held that no fault could be found with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the customs appeal was dismissed.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s. United Futuristic Trade Impex Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs

Citation: JURISHOUR-1166-CES-2026(BANG)   

Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 20048 of 2025

Date: 05.05.2026

Counsel For  Appellant: Manav Purohit, Chartered Accountant 

Counsel For Respondent: Vinod Kumar Garhwal, Superintendent (AR) 

Read More: Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form-26AS and ITR Data Not Sustainable: CESTAT