CESTAT Dismisses Appeal Due to Inordinate Delay Beyond Limitation Period, Upholding FAA's Order [Read Order]
The CESTAT upheld the FAA’s decision, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs CCE Jamshedpur (2008), which limits the condonable delay to 60+30 days.
![CESTAT Dismisses Appeal Due to Inordinate Delay Beyond Limitation Period, Upholding FAAs Order [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CESTAT.jpg "CESTAT Dismisses Appeal Due to Inordinate Delay Beyond Limitation Period, Upholding FAAs Order [Read Order]")
The Chennai Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to inordinate delay beyond the prescribed limitation period, upholding the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order. Sakthi Construction India (P) Ltd.,appellant-assessee,had filed an appeal before the FAA after a significant delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) in...
The Chennai Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to inordinate delay beyond the prescribed limitation period, upholding the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) order.
Sakthi Construction India (P) Ltd.,appellant-assessee,had filed an appeal before the FAA after a significant delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that the Order-in-Original, dated 14.10.2011, was served on the appellant on 28.12.2011.
Get a Copy of Direct Taxes Law and Practices Including Tax Planning with Free E-Book Access, Click Here
However, the appeal was submitted to the FAA on 25.02.2014, which resulted in a substantial delay. Since the delay surpassed the permissible 60+30 days, the FAA had dismissed the appeal as time-barred, without delving into the merits of the case.
The assessee aggrieved by the decision appealed before the tribunal.
Read More: CESTAT dismisses Appeal filed beyond limitation period u/s 85(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944
The two member bench comprising P.Dinesha(Judicial Member) and M.Ajit Kumar(Technical Member) noted that the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the delay, but the appeal was filed on time. The affidavit only acknowledged the delay in filing the first appeal and asked for it to be condoned. However, the CESTAT found the delay in filing the first appeal was significant.
The law set a time limit for filing the appeal and allowed a short period for delay. The FAA pointed out the delay and noted that no request for condonation was made. The FAA followed the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of M/s. Singh Enterprises Vs CCE Jamshedpur [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)].
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The appellate tribunal agreed, stating that the delay was too long, and no request had been made to excuse it. According to the Apex Court, no authority could condone a delay beyond the allowed 60+30 days, and in this case, the delay was over two years.
Considering the above, the bench chose not to interfere with the impugned order of the FAA and, as a result, dismissed the appeal.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
M/s.Sakthi Construction India (P) Ltd vs The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise , 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 356 , Service Tax Appeal No. 40012 of 2015 , 07 January 2025 , Shri G. Madan , Shri M. Selvakumar