High Court finds no substantial question of law in CESTAT's decision; appellants' prolonged inaction deemed unexplained.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed appeals challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) refusal to condone a delay of approximately 968 days in filing appeals against an Order-in-Original issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The order, dated August 18, 2026, was passed by a bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain.
The appellants, M/s Radhey Shyam Rishipal Factory and its partners, sought to challenge the CESTAT's decision which had denied condonation of the substantial delay, citing lack of sufficient cause. The appellants claimed they became aware of the Order-in-Original only after their bank accounts were frozen by the customs department in February 2024, prompting them to request a copy of the order, which they received in July 2024. They argued that the delay should be calculated from when they received the order.
The Delhi High Court, however, highlighted the appellants' failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for their inaction over the extended period. The court noted that the appellants were represented by counsel throughout the adjudication proceedings, and the customs department had dispatched the order to the registered address and communicated it via email to the appellants' counsel. The CESTAT had observed that the appellants did not make any inquiries about the outcome of the proceedings for nearly three years, indicating negligence and lack of due diligence.
The bench emphasized that under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, its jurisdiction is limited to addressing substantial questions of law, and it cannot reappraise factual determinations made by the CESTAT. The Court found no perversity or legal error in the Tribunal's discretion to deny condonation of the delay, as it was based on relevant material and cogent reasons.
In concluding, the Delhi High Court upheld the CESTAT's order and dismissed the appeals, underlining that the appellants' challenge essentially sought a re-evaluation of facts, which does not constitute a substantial question of law warranting interference under the given jurisdiction.
Bottom Line :
Customs Act, 1962 - Appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay of approximately 968 days in filing appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Tribunal's discretion to refuse condonation upheld as based on relevant material and cogent reasons.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 Section 129A(3), Section 129A(5), Section 130
