Filing Appeal Before Wrong Appellate Authority No Ground For Condonation Of Delay: CESTAT Allahabad
Pranav B Prem
The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that filing an appeal before an incorrect appellate authority does not constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal reiterated that once the maximum condonable period provided under the statute expires, neither the appellate authority nor the Tribunal has the power to entertain the appeal. The decision was rendered by Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava, while examining an appeal filed against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, which had dismissed the assessee’s appeal as time-barred.
The case arose from a show cause notice issued to the assessee proposing a demand of service tax amounting to ₹12.57 lakh along with interest and penalty on the allegation of non-payment of service tax. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand as proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the assessee sought to challenge it by way of an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
However, instead of filing the appeal before the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, the assessee mistakenly filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow. Subsequently, after realising the mistake, the assessee refiled the appeal before the correct appellate authority at Allahabad. By that time, the appeal had crossed not only the prescribed limitation period of 60 days but also the additional condonable period of 30 days permitted under Section 85(3A).
The Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad, dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the maximum permissible period of limitation and that there was no power under the statute to condone delay beyond the outer limit of 90 days.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the delay occurred due to bona fide reasons. It was submitted that the appeal had initially been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow, and that the papers sent by speed post on October 11, 2023 were not delivered and were returned to the jurisdictional office. According to the assessee, this procedural lapse resulted in delay in filing the appeal before the correct authority, and the appeal should not be rejected merely on account of filing before the wrong forum.
The Tribunal, however, was not persuaded by these submissions. It noted that the assessee had been duly informed about the correct appellate jurisdiction and that there was no ambiguity regarding the forum before which the appeal was required to be filed. The Bench observed that ignorance or mistake on the part of the assessee in approaching the wrong appellate authority cannot be treated as a sufficient cause for condoning delay beyond the statutory limit.
The Tribunal also took note of the assessee’s own application for condonation of delay, which was duly notarised, wherein it was admitted that the appeal had been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow on October 1, 2023. The Tribunal observed that even this date fell beyond the condonable period provided under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Emphasising the settled legal position, the Tribunal held that the limitation period prescribed under the statute is mandatory in nature and that equity or sympathy cannot override statutory provisions. It reiterated that once the period of 60 days plus the additional condonable period of 30 days expires, the appellate authority becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The Bench categorically held that filing an appeal before the wrong forum does not save limitation and cannot be a ground for condonation of delay beyond what is expressly permitted under the law. The Tribunal further observed that arguments seeking leniency for one’s own procedural mistakes are not legally tenable when the statute itself restricts the power of condonation. In view of the above findings, the CESTAT Allahabad upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Appearance
Counsel for Appellant/ Assessee: Nitin Sharma
Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Santosh Kumar
Cause Title: M/s Ganga Telecom v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Kanpur
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No.70660 of 2025
Coram: Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava
