LG polymers India Private Limited vs P C C T- VISAKHAPATNAM- GST

(1)
E/30193/2026

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Excise Appeal No. 30193 of 2026
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-EXCUS-000-APP-176-2025-26 dt.23.03.2026 passed
by Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals), Guntur)

M/s LG Polymers India Pvt Ltd .. APPELLANT
8345, Central Expressway, Appaiahpalem Village,
Sathyavedu Mandal, Tirupati, AP – 517 646

VERSUS
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT
Visakhapatnam - GST
Customs House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam
Andhra Pradesh – 530 035


APPEARANCE:-
Shri Ashwani Pahwa & Ms. J. Sai Lavanya, CA for the Appellant.

Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao, AR for the Respondent.

CORAM : HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/30524/2026
Date of Hearing: 04.11.2026

Date of Decision: 05.11.2026

The present Appeal is directed against Impugned Order-in-Appeal
dt.23.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, whereby the
appeal filed by the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation without
examining the merits of the case.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in
the manufacture of General Purpose and High Impact Polystyrene falling
under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The dispute relates
to the availment of Cenvat credit on certain input services during the period
April, 2017 to June, 2017. The adjudicating authority, vide Order-in-Original
dt.29.03.2025, disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.4,75,403/-
along with applicable interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.47,540/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the

(2)
E/30193/2026

Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected on the ground of limitation on
account of a delay of 5 days.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Order-in-
Original was received on 29.04.2025 and the appellant attempted to file the
appeal on 27.06.2026 at the appellate sub-office at Visakhapatnam, within
the prescribed period of 60 days. However, the appellant was informed that
the said office had been shifted to Guntur. Consequently, the appeal was filed
at Guntur on 03.07.2025, resulting in a delay of only 5 days. It has been
submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence
but occurred due to circumstances beyond the appellant’s control. It has been
further submitted that the appeal was admittedly filed within the additional
condonable period of 30 days prescribed under section 35(1) of the Central
Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have
condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.
4. Learned AR has supported the impugned orders.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. I find that the limited issue requiring consideration is whether the
Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 5
days in filing the appeal.
7. Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides a period of 60
days for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), with a further
period of 30 days within which delay may be condoned upon sufficient cause
being shown. In the present case, admittedly, the appeal was filed with a
delay of only 5 days beyond the normal period of limitation and was,
therefore, well within the statutory condonable period.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs CCE,
Jamshedpur [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)], has held that the Commissioner
(Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond the additional period expressly
prescribed under section 35(1) of the Act. However, where the delay falls
within the permissible condonable period, the Commissioner (Appeals) is
empowered to condone the same upon being satisfied about the existence of
sufficient cause.

(3)
E/30193/2026

9. I further find that the appellant has furnished a specific explanation that
it attempted to file the appeal at Visakhapatnam within the prescribed period
but could not do so on account of the shifting of the appellate sub-office to
Guntur. The appellant has also pointed out that Order-in-Original itself
mentioned the Visakhapatnam appellate sub-office. Although the
Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon a verification report indicating that no
record of such interaction was available, mere absence of official record of
attempted filing cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive evidence of absence
of bonafides. The explanation furnished by the appellant is plausible and
deserves consideration in the light of the short period of delay.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition
Anantnag Vs Mst. Katiji & Others [1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC)], has emphasized
that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive a justice-oriented
interpretation so that substantial justice is not defeated by a technical
approach to limitation. The said principle insofar as it concerns the assessment
of sufficient cause, is relevant to the exercise of the discretion expressly
conferred under section 35(1) of the Act.
11. In the present case, I find that the delay was merely 5 days and the
appellant has furnished a reasonable explanation for the same. There is
nothing to indicate that the delay was deliberate or occasioned by any
malafide intention. It is settled that although limitation provisions are required
to be strictly followed, the discretion expressly conferred by the statute must
be exercised judiciously upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of
each case. In my considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) adopted an
unduly technical approach in declining to condone such a short delay,
particularly when the appeal was admittedly filed within the statutory
condonable period.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that
the appellant has established sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of
5 days. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the appeal on limitation
cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Since the Commissioner
(Appeals) has not examined the substantive issue regarding admissibility of
Cenvat credit, it would be proper to remand the matter for fresh consideration
on merits.

(4)
E/30193/2026

13. Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dt.23.03.2026 is set aside
and the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)
is condoned. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals)
with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law,
after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
14. The appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
(Pronounced in Open Court on 05.11.2026)


(ANGAD PRASAD)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Veda