CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – IV Excise Appeal No. 50181 of 2024 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-EXCUS-000-APP-29-2023-24 dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Indore]

M/s. Dhananjay Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant Plot No. 42, 53 & 112-A, Sector-F, Industrial Area, Sanwer Road, Indore – 452015 (M.P.)

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & CGST - Indore …Respondent Manik Bagh Palace, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 452014 APPEARANCE:

Ms. Rinki Arora and Shri Mayun Jain, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Kuldeep Rawat, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 08.01.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 08.01.2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50141/2026 DR. RACHNA GUPTA Present appeal is filed to assail Order-in-Appeal No. 29/2023-

24 dated 28.04.2023 vide which the appeal against the Order-in- Original dated 31.12.2021 has been rejected on the grounds of limitation. The facts relevant for the present adjudication are as follows:

1.1 The appellant, M/s. Dhananjay Confectionaries Pvt. Ltd. is manufacturing company and is also registered with service tax department. Based on the audit objections that a Show Cause Notice No. 35/2019 dated 09.09.2019 was served upon the appellant proposing the demand of Rs.66,463/- at the rate of 6% of value of scrap sold for consideration to be recovered along with the interest at appropriate rate and the proportionate penalties. The said show cause notice was decided ex parte vide Order-in-Original No. 05/2021-22 dated 31.12.2021 and the appeal against the said order has been rejected on the technical ground of limitation.

Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.

2. I have heard M/s. Rinki Arora and Shri Mayur Jain, learned Advocates for the appellant and Shri Kuldeep Rawat, learned Authorized Representative for the department.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Order- in-Original dated 31.12.2021 was communicated to the appellant on 21.01.2022. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 31.05.2022. It is submitted that the appeal was not filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the Order-in-Original. However, Commissioner (Appeals) has given due acknowledgment to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 in suo- moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, directing the extension of period of limitation from 15.03.202 to 28.02.2022. It is submitted that despite said consideration, the appeal has been rejected observing one day delay in filing thereof. Learned counsel submitted that the next day of the date of expiry of period of limitation was Sunday though the appeal would have been filed on Monday but got filed on Tuesday but that was under bona fide understanding that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. It is submitted that one day delay is not fatal and nor prejudicial to the department for an appeal which is meritorious. It is submitted that issue involved in the present appeal stands already decided in favour of the appellant. No question arises for one day delay to intentional or mala fide. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jagdish Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Raipur in Excise Appeal No. 52382 of 2018 decided on 28.11.2019. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed.

4. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has pointed out that the impugned order has been passed relying upon Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 by virtue of which statute has not empowered Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond 90 days. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was admittedly filed after a delay of 90 days. The excluded period in