TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner (Appeals)] by which the appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner has been dismissed. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for two reasons. The first is that the appeal was filed beyond the period stipulated under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [the Central Excise Act]. The second is that the appellant had not made the pre-deposit of the statutory amount. 3. This Tribunal, in order dated 06.06.2025, held that the requirement of pre-deposit stood satisfied. 4. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the period stipulated under section 35 of the Central Excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ys 7. In the present case, there is no dispute that the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, against which the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), was served upon the appellant on 18.02.2022. However, in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court because of COVID pandemic, the period from 18.02.2020 to 28.02.2022 has to be excluded and limitation for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) would commence only from 01.03.2022. The period of 60 days would expire on 29.04.2022 and so the appeal was required to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on or before 29.04.2022. In terms of the proviso to section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, the appellant could have filed an applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of limitation of 30 days. 12. It, therefore, follows that the appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under section 35 of the Central Excise Act as any period after 28.05.2022 could not have been condoned. 13. The Supreme Court in M/S Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and others [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)] held that the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act can condone the delay of only 30 days after the expiry of normal period of 60 days and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, I.T.C.'s case (supra) to contend that the High Court and this Court in appropriate cases condoned the delay on sufficient cause being shown. 10. Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the a....