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
- Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 3]
