CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH- COURT NO. I Customs Appeal No. 50574 of 2025 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-EXCUS-000-APP-112-2024-25 dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Customs and Central Excise, Indore (M.P.))

M/s. Hari Sons Pan Masala .…Appellant

6-A, Old Kabadkhana, Jumerati Bazar, Bhopal, M.P.-462001 Versus The Commissioner (Customs) .…Respondent B-Zone, 3-Mala, 12/2/7 and 12/2/8, Pipaliyakumar-Village, Nipaniya Indore-462011(M.P.)

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Abhas Mishra, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. M.K. Shukla, Authorised Representative of the Department CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: January 19, 2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50159/2026 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal has been dismissed for the reason that it was barred by time.

2. The records indicate that against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 16.12.2021 which was served upon the appellant on 26.12.2021, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.03.2024.

3. This appeal was filed under section 128 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962¹ which provides that the appeal should be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the decision but proviso to section 128(1)

1 the Customs Act of the Customs Act stipulates that the Commissioner (Appeals) if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period may condone the delay of

30 days.

4. In the present case, as the appeal was filed even after the expiry of the extended period of 30 days from the normal period of 60 days, the Commissioner (Appeals), in view of the decision of Supreme Court in M/s Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur², dismissed the appeal.

5. Mr. Abhas Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the delay condonation application that was filed by the appellant and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

6. Mr. M.K. Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises, the appeal was correctly dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

7. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay cannot be accepted. As noticed above, the Commissioner (Appeals) could at best condone the delay of 30 days after the expiry of the normal period of 60 days. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the appeal was not filed within the normal period of 60 days or within the extended period of 30 days.

8. The Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises clearly held that the Commissioner does not have the power to condone any delay beyond the expiry of 30 days after the expiry of the normal period of 60 days

2 2008 (221) E.L.T 163(S.C.)

in filing the appeal. The relevant portion of the judgment of Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises 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 permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the “Limitation Act‟) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was