The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has remanded an excise refund dispute involving Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to properly consider the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the appeal.

The bench of P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the matter afresh, emphasizing that procedural fairness and factual appreciation are essential in determining limitation issues. 

The case arose from refund claims filed by BHEL under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, following the finalization of provisional assessments for the period 2011–12 to 2017–18. The refund claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, leading BHEL to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation. 

BHEL contended that the delay occurred due to incorrect addressing of the original adjudication order. The order was sent to a non-existent designation — “ADGM-Taxation” — within the organization, which led to internal delays before it reached the appropriate अधिकारी on September 9, 2024.

The company argued that the date of actual receipt should be treated as September 9, 2024, not September 6, 2024 (as inadvertently mentioned in the appeal proforma). The delay, if computed from the correct date, would fall within the condonable period. An affidavit explaining these circumstances had been submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals), but was not considered.

Additionally, BHEL raised a significant procedural lapse, stating that the original order was passed without issuing a show cause notice or granting a personal hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 

The Tribunal noted that the incorrect designation in the address was not attributable to the appellant and could reasonably cause internal delays in a large organization like BHEL. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied solely on the date mentioned in the appeal proforma without examining the affidavit and detailed submissions explaining the delay. There was a failure to appreciate the factual matrix and circumstances surrounding the service of the order.

The Tribunal emphasized that such a mechanical approach to limitation defeats the cause of justice, especially when sufficient explanation is placed on record.

Allowing the appeal by way of remand, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the issue of limitation after examining the appellant’s submissions and affidavit; properly assess the actual date of receipt of the order; and pass a fresh order after due consideration of all relevant facts.

The matter has been directed to be decided expeditiously within 12 weeks. 

Case Details

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd Versus Commissioner Cgst & Central Excise 

Citation: JURISHOUR-1089-CES-2026(DEL) 

Case No.: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50104 OF 2026

Date: 04.05.2026

Counsel For  Appellant: Z.U. Alvi, Advocate 

Counsel For Respondent: Anuj Kumar Neeraj, Authorised Representative

Read More: Sattankulam Custodial Death Case: Tamil Nadu Court Awards Death Penalty to Nine Policemen