The New Delhi Bench of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that failure of the department to transfer the appeal internally to the concerned appellate division would not render the appeal to be barred by limitation.

A bench of Ms. Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member) and Mr. P.V Subba Rao (Technical Member) observed that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed by the appellant / assessee where he was prosecuting an appeal bonafidely before a different appellate division.

The appellant / assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal as time-barred since it was beyond the period of limitation as provided under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant / assessee argued that the appeal was initially filed bonafidely before the Meerut division. Afterwards he was informed that the office for filing of appeal has shifted to Dehradun. Consequently, he then filed an appeal in Dehradun and therefore, he contended that the time period for filing appeal before the Meerut division be excluded.     

The Department, on the other hand, objected to the filing of the appeal and contended that since the distance from Haldwani to Dehradun was just 4 hours, the appellant / assessee could have filed the appeal on the same day when he was informed.

The issue for consideration before the bench was whether the delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the period of 2+1 months can be condoned.

The tribunal held that the period during which the appellant / assessee was prosecuting the appeal before the Meerut division, shall be excluded for computing the limitation period. Reliance was placed on the judgment in M.P Steel vs Commissioner of Central Excise wherein it was observed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act has to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice. It was also observed that the diligence of the appellant / assessee can be inferred from the fact that he also made a pre-deposit for filing an appeal. Hence, he is entitled to avail the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act.

Thus,  the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Case title: Harshit Sanwal & Ors vs Commissioner of CGST

Case No: Service Tax Appeal 50721 of 2019

Date of decision: 26.03.2025

Advocates for the appellant: Shri Atul Kumar and Shri Aditya Vikram Singh

Authorised Representative for the respondent: Shri Aejaz Ahmad

Read More: Alleged Illegal Sale of Nazul Land: Delhi High Court Issues Notice