Logistics Firm’s Year-Late Service-Tax Appeal Dismissed; CESTAT Says Delay Beyond Three Months Cannot Be Condoned

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed Anubhav Logistics’ appeal as time-barred. The appellant had received the adjudicating authority’s order on 19 May 2022 but filed its appeal on 23 May 2023, beyond the period permitted by Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal. After two earlier adjournments requested by the appellant, it did not appear at the hearing on 27 October 2026 and made no further adjournment request; the Tribunal proceeded after hearing the Revenue’s authorised representative.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be filed within two months of receipt of the order and permits condonation, for sufficient cause, only for a further period of one month.

In *Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur*, the Supreme Court held that where the statute limits the appellate authority’s power to condone delay, it cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond that extended period.

The Tribunal also relied on *Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.*, where the Supreme Court held that statutory limitation periods cannot be disregarded so as to defeat the legislative scheme.

*Siddhi Developers*, which held that neither the Tribunal’s powers under Sections 35B and 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 nor its appellate jurisdiction permit it to condone, or direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone, delay beyond the limit in Section 85(3A).

The Tribunal further stated that, under the proviso to Section 35C(1A) of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, it could not adjourn the matter further.

The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed more than twelve months after receipt of the order, exceeding both the initial two-month period and the additional one-month period available for condonation.

Applying *Singh Enterprises*, *Glaxo Smith Kline* and *Siddhi Developers*, the Tribunal held that the statutory limit was not extendable and that its own powers could not cure the time-bar or empower the Commissioner (Appeals) to do so.

Although the appellant was absent, the Tribunal considered the appeal after hearing the Revenue and found no merit in it.

It granted no relief.