Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

No Exclusion of Limitation Period u/s 14 for Bills Not Prosecuted in Refund Proceedings: CESTAT Dismisses Appeal as Time-Barred [Read Order]

The Tribunal held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked since the refund proceedings related to only two bills of entry, not the 14 disputed ones.

No Exclusion of Limitation Period u/s 14 for Bills Not Prosecuted in Refund Proceedings: CESTAT Dismisses Appeal as Time-Barred [Read Order]
X

The Principal Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where earlier proceedings did not concern the same bills of entry. Since the refund application covered only two bills, the remaining 14 bills were never prosecuted in those proceedings. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal...


The Principal Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where earlier proceedings did not concern the same bills of entry. Since the refund application covered only two bills, the remaining 14 bills were never prosecuted in those proceedings. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

This Appeal was filed by the Appellant, Senior India Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, dismissing the appeal concerning Bill of Entry No. 8276169 dated 01.10.2018 as time-barred. The same order dismissed 13 other appeals as time-barred, while two appeals were decided on merits.

The Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, explained that: Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction

“(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.”

The Appellant imported goods under 14 bills of entry between 17.09.2018 and 06.02.2019. A refund application dated 26.08.2019 was filed, which was rejected on 08.05.2020 and received by the appellant on 02.06.2020. On 17.04.2019, the appellant disputed the classification of goods, stating they should be classified under tariff heading 8481.

Your Guide to GST Tariffs & Exemptions. Click here 

Further, the refund application covered only two bills of entry and not the 14 bills in question. Appeals were filed challenging the assessment of these 14 bills of entry, which were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred.

The Counsel for the Appellant, B.L. Narasimhan, Kruti Parashar and Aditi Sharma, submitted that the time spent in refund proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner should be excluded while computing the limitation period under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Further, the Counsel argued that the appeals concerning 14 bills of entry were filed following rejection of the refund application, and therefore the period during which the refund application was pending should be excluded. The Counsel also submitted that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's decision in Vishal Videos & Appliances vs. Commissioner of Customs Final Order No. 55859-55891/2024 dated 24.01.2025.

On the other hand, the Respondent was represented by the authorised representative of the department, Rajesh Singh.

The Tribunal consisted of Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Technical Member, P.V Subba Rao, heard and after considering the material on record, upheld the impugned order finding that the appellant cannot claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the refund application dated 26.08.2019, which was rejected on 08.05.2020, pertained to only two bills of entry and did not cover the 14 bills of entry in question.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, following the precedent in Vishal Videos & Appliances vs. Commissioner of Customs. The Order was pronounced on 07.01.2026.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Senior India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import) , 2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 123 , CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 52090 of 2022 , 07 January 2026 , B.L. Narasimhan , Rajesh Singh
Senior India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import)
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 123Case Number :  CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 52090 of 2022Date of Judgement :  07 January 2026Coram :  JUSTICE DILIP GUPTACounsel of Appellant :  B.L. NarasimhanCounsel Of Respondent :  Rajesh Singh
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019