Sai Auto Industries vs. The Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax

Facts

The appellant, Sai Auto Industries, filed an appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT had dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (Appeals), Dehradun. The Commissioner's order had, in turn, dismissed the appellant's appeal against an order by the Additional Commissioner. The sole ground for dismissal by the CESTAT was that the appeal was filed beyond the time stipulated under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order dated 28.12.2022, which the appellant sought to challenge before the Commissioner, was received by the appellant on 18.02.2022, and the appeal was filed on 30.05.2022. The CESTAT had excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 based on a Supreme Court order.

Held

The Court held that the submission of the revenue was not acceptable. The Court reasoned that the direction in paragraph 5(3) of the Supreme Court's order clearly stated that the limitation would be 90 days from 01.03.2022. While it mentioned cases where limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, accepting the revenue's submission would create an artificial distinction. It would mean that for cases where limitation expired during that period, the limitation would be extended to 90 days from 01.03.2022, but for other cases where limitation did not expire during that period, the statutory limitation would continue. This distinction was not intended by the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that 28.05.2022 was a Saturday and 29.05.2022 was a Sunday, making the appeal filed on 30.05.2022 within the extended limitation period. Consequently, the CESTAT's order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation was set aside. The appeal was restored to its original number and directed to be decided on merits. The ratio decidendi is that the Supreme Court's direction for a 90-day limitation period from 01.03.2022, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, applies broadly to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, irrespective of whether the original limitation expired within the specified exclusion period, to avoid artificial distinctions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant on 30.05.2022 was within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. The appellant argued that the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022, exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution, specifically provided in paragraph 5(3) that the limitation period would be 90 days from 01.03.2022, irrespective of the statute, for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, the appellant contended that they were entitled to file their appeal within 90 days from 01.03.2022, making their filing on 30.05.2022 within the prescribed time. The revenue contended that paragraph 5(3) of the Supreme Court's order was applicable only to cases where the limitation was expiring between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. Since the appellant's limitation of 60 days did not expire during this period, they were not entitled to the benefit of the 90-day extension. The revenue also argued that the appellant had not filed an application for condonation of delay, and thus the limitation did not automatically extend.