Court Dismisses Time-Barred Petition on Cenvat Credit; Upholds 90-Day Limit

The court dismissed the petition challenging orders dated 25.05.2017 and 08.01.2018 due to being time-barred for appeal beyond the 90-day period. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the limitation on condoning delays beyond 90 days, as established in relevant precedents. The petitioner's contentions regarding a clerical mistake in availing Cenvat Credit were deemed unsuitable for judicial review, lacking grounds for challenging jurisdiction or principles of natural justice violation. The court also highlighted the unreasonable delay in instituting the petition, further weakening the petitioner's case, leading to the dismissal of the petition without costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 10.03.2016, 25.05.2017, and 08.01.2018 - Appeal beyond 90 days - Condonation of delay - Judicial review scope - Clerical mistake in availing Cenvat Credit - Suppression of facts - Intention to evade duty - Assessment proceeding jurisdiction - Delay in instituting the petition.

Analysis:
The petition challenged orders dated 10.03.2016, 25.05.2017, and 08.01.2018, which were dismissed as time-barred due to appeal being instituted beyond the 90-day period extendable by the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal upheld this dismissal citing precedents like Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, and Full Bench decisions of Gujarat and Hyderabad High Courts. These decisions emphasized the limitation of condoning delays beyond 90 days, even in Article 226/227 petitions, ensuring no interference with the mentioned orders.

Regarding the order-in-original dated 10.03.2016, the petitioner contended a clerical mistake in availing Cenvat Credit, asserting no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty. However, the respondent argued that such contentions did not challenge jurisdiction or principles of natural justice violation, warranting dismissal. The court noted that these contentions lacked grounds for judicial review as explained by the Gujarat High Court, suggesting they were more suitable for appellate jurisdiction, not judicial review.

The court highlighted the inordinate delay in instituting the petition, filed on 29th September 2018 despite orders made in 2016 and 2018. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation for this delay, claiming no laches, which further weakened their case. The court found the delay unreasonable and an additional reason to dismiss the petition, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions in such matters.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition based on the lack of merit in challenging the orders dated 25.05.2017 and 08.01.2018, the unsuitability of contentions for judicial review, and the significant delay in instituting the petition. No costs were awarded in this case, considering the circumstances.

---