CESTAT Can’t Condon Delay in Filing Before Commissioner (Appeals) | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

CESTAT condonation of delay
Case Details: Saurabh Kumar Agarwal Versus Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (2025) 31 Centax 65 (All.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Shekhar B. Saraf & Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ.
  • Shri Anarannaj Pratap Singh, for the Appellant.
  • Shri Gaurav Mahajan, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant-assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging an adjudication order. The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of about three years. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the delay exceeded the statutorily permissible limit and that there was no power to condone delay beyond 30 days.

Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which rejected the appeal on the ground that it had no statutory power to condone delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant submitted that the delay was due to his prolonged illness, specifically Tuberculosis, and requested that such circumstances be considered on equitable grounds. The matter was accordingly placed before the Allahabad High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

High Court Held

The Allahabad High Court held that where the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed with a delay of about three years, such delay could not be condoned either by the Commissioner (Appeals) or by CESTAT in absence of any statutory power to condone delay beyond 30 days before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)], which held that appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to be filed within the period as provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and there existed no power either with the Commissioner (Appeals) or with CESTAT to condone delay beyond 30 days.

The Court noted that the explanation offered by the appellant-assessee that he was suffering from Tuberculosis might give rise to a right in equity, but the same could not percolate to a right under statute. The appeal was dismissed in favour of the Department of Revenue.

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
SC Dismisses Appeal, Upholds HC Order Limiting Cenvat Credit Use

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

Maintenance Reimbursements Not Part of Renting Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Construction Agreements With Landowners Are Works Contract | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Market Support Services to Foreign Entity Treated as Export: CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 10, 2025

Lease of Land for Port and Marine Activities Attracts Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025

Services to Foreign Client for Market Promotion Qualify as Export | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

Installing Software With COA Stickers Is Sale—Not Service | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

SC Rules Freight Collected by Agents Not Taxable

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 30, 2025

Service Tax Demand Invalid When Trade Discounts Passed On | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 28, 2025

CGST Officers Can Pursue Pending Service Tax Matters | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 22, 2025