CESTAT Sends LG Polymers’ ₹4.75-Lakh Cenvat Dispute Back for Merits Hearing, Condoning 5-Day Delay Over Appellate Office Shift

The appellant challenged an adjudication order disallowing Cenvat credit of ₹4,75,403, with interest and penalty, for the period April–June 2017.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected its appeal as time-barred, finding a delay of five days.

The appellant contended that it had attempted to file the appeal at the Visakhapatnam sub-office within the prescribed period but was redirected to Guntur because the office had shifted; it filed there on 3 July 2025.

The Commissioner (Appeals) declined to accept that explanation, and the appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allows 60 days to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), with a further 30 days during which delay may be condoned for sufficient cause.

Under Singh Enterprises v CCE, Jamshedpur, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond that additional statutory period, but may condone delay within it where sufficient cause is established.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v Mst. Katiji supports a justice-oriented interpretation of “sufficient cause” when exercising discretion expressly conferred by statute.

The five-day delay fell within the additional 30-day condonable period.

The appellant gave a specific explanation: it had attempted to file at Visakhapatnam within time but was unable to do so after the appellate sub-office shifted to Guntur.

The Tribunal considered that explanation plausible, noting that the absence of an official record of the interaction did not conclusively disprove the appellant’s account.

Given the short delay and the absence of any indication of deliberate conduct or mala fides, the Commissioner (Appeals) had adopted an unduly technical approach in refusing condonation.

As the merits of the credit dispute had not been examined, the appropriate course was remand.

It set aside the Order-in-Appeal, condoned the delay, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The appeal was allowed by way of remand.