Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Jamshedpur vs. M/S Tata Steel

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur (Appellant) filed an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated June 8, 2023. The CESTAT had allowed an appeal filed by M/s Tata Steel (Respondent) and granted consequential reliefs. The Appellant's appeal was filed with a delay of 63 days. The Respondent pointed out that no application for condonation of delay was filed initially, and one was only filed on March 18, 2025, after the Registry raised the defect on April 4, 2024, making the total delay 428 days. The Appellant argued that filing a delay condonation application with the appeal is not mandatory and can be cured later, citing State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. The Appellant also provided an explanation for the delay, attributing it to the transfer of three officials and communication gaps.

Held

The Court condoned the delay of 428 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the explanation provided regarding official transfers and communication gaps. The Court then proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. The Court held that the appeal did not involve any substantial questions of law. The CESTAT had found that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the period prescribed in Section 11A(1) of the said Act, as there was no suppression of facts established. The Court agreed that the finding of no suppression was a pure finding of fact, supported by the material on record, and not perverse. Even the additional question proposed by the revenue regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation did not allege perversity. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appeal could not be admitted as it did not raise substantial questions of law. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal, whether construed as 63 days or 428 days, is sufficiently explained to warrant condonation under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 2. Whether the appeal involves substantial questions of law, as required for admission under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the CESTAT's finding that the show-cause notice was issued beyond the prescribed period of one year under Section 11A(1) of the said Act and that there was no suppression of facts? Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argued that filing a delay condonation application along with a time-barred appeal is not mandatory and can be subsequently cured. Relied on State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Submitted that the explanation for the delay, involving transfers and communication gaps, constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 63 days, and even for the 428-day delay. Argued that the appeal raises questions regarding whether galvanisation amounts to manufacturing under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Revenue/State: Submitted that the appeal was presented only on March 18, 2025, after a delay of 428 days, with no explanation for this extended delay, and therefore, the delay condonation application should be dismissed. Argued that the CESTAT erred in holding that the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked.