2025 (12) TMI 1608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the legality of Interim Order No. 142/2024 (Defect) dated 14.05.2024, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata. By the said order, the learned Tribunal refused to condone a delay of 2262 days in filing the statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original, resulting in a summary dismissal of the Assessee's plea upon the characterization of their inaction as "total negligence." 2. The timeline of the delay is bifurcated into two distinct phases. The statutory limitation for filing the appeal expired on 10.04.2018; however, the appeal was eventually preferred only on 28.03.2024. The Appellant sought to bridge this hiatus by pleading bona fide reliance upon the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of delay. He further argued that the failure to verify the publicly accessible online status for nearly four years evinced a profound lack of diligence, justifying the finding of "total negligence" under the rigors of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, the Substantial Question of Law that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in adopting a hyper-technical approach by refusing to condone the delay, thereby extinguishing the Appellant's right to challenge a significant financial penalty on merits, especially when the delay was attributed to the pursuit of a State-sponsored Amnesty Scheme?" 7. The factu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce deserves to be preferred. 10. In matters of taxation, the State should not be seen as a litigant interested in benefiting from the procedural lapses of its citizens. The SVLDRS, 2019 was a beneficial, State-sponsored mechanism intended to clear the backlog of "legacy" disputes. Even if the Appellant's application was ultimately found to be ineligible-being a co-noticee-the act of applying for such a scheme is a clear manifestation of an intent to resolve the liability. It cannot be termed as a "dilatory tactic" or mala fide conduct. 11. Regarding the Tribunal's observation on the Appellant's "initial lethargy," we must emphasize that the law of limitation is not meant to be an "extinguishing engine" for substantive rights. Once it ....