The court clarified that the 90-day limitation for appeals post-COVID was applicable only if the original limitation expired during the excluded period; the prescribed 60-day limit stands firm otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta C.J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 35 -G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “CESTAT”) dated 29.09.2025 in Excise Appeal No.50976 of 2025.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had challenged the order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (Appeals), Dehradun whereby appeal against the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner was dismissed. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that it was filed beyond time stipulated under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.

4. Section 35 of the Central Excise Act is as follows:

"35. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals).-

(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Principal Commissioner of Central Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of the communication to him of such decision or order:

Provided that the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days."

5. The admitted fact is that order dated 28.12.2022 challenged in the appeal was received by the appellant on 18.02.2022. The appeal was filed on 30.05.2022. The Tribunal has excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, the relevant parts of which are as follows:

“5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:

I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

II. ….

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.”

6. The Tribunal has held that under Section 35 of the Act, the prescribed limitation is 60 days which expired on 29.04.2022 as the limitation started running from 01.03.2022.

7. The power to condone delay of 30 days beyond the prescribed period of 60 days could be exercised only if sufficient cause is made out. In the present case, the appellant had not filed any application for condonation of delay and, therefore, the limitation did not automatically get extended to 90 days. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant that the limitation when counted from 01.03.2022 would be 90 days and would expire on 30.05.2022 has been repelled.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 10.01.2022 was passed