Uday Shoes Private Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals ) Customs CGST And Central Excise And Another

Facts

Uday Shoes Private Limited (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST and Central Excise (respondent no. 2). The appeal was dismissed due to the delay in filing the refund application. The petitioner had claimed a refund for the period April 2018 to March 2019, filing the application on 28.02.2021, which was beyond the original limitation period ending in March 2020. The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's suo motu order in Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 extended the limitation period, making their application timely. The respondent argued that the limitation expired in March 2020.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The Court found that the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 had extended the period of limitation for cases where the limitation was expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. As the petitioner's refund application was filed within this extended period, the appellate authority should have considered the application on its merits without being precluded by the original limitation period. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court's order provided a blanket extension, which the appellate authority was bound to follow. The order dated 08.02.2022 passed by the appellate authority was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the refund application without considering the question of limitation, expeditiously within one month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's suo motu order dated 10.01.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the period of limitation, is applicable to the petitioner's refund application filed beyond the original statutory period, thereby overriding the appellate authority's decision based on limitation? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's order extended the limitation period for all cases where the limitation was expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. Since their refund application was filed within this extended period, the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay. They relied on the Supreme Court's suo motu order. Respondent's contention: The respondent submitted that the period of limitation for the refund application expired in March 2020, and the appellate authority had correctly considered this. They did not explicitly address the applicability of the Supreme Court's suo motu order in their arguments presented in the judgment.