January 21, 2026 : The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that an appeal filed within the prescribed limitation period cannot be rejected as time-barred merely because the mandatory pre-deposit was made at a later stage.
The Division Bench comprising Somesh Arora (Judicial Member) and Satendra Vikram Singh (Technical Member) delivered the ruling in Service Tax Appeal No. 10714 of 2020, titled Shri Govind Guru University v. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-II.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Vadodara, which rejected the appeal filed by Shri Govind Guru University on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit had not been made.
According to the record, the appeal papers were returned to the appellant for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. When the appeal was later re-filed after making the deposit, it was treated as being beyond the limitation period and consequently rejected.
Tribunal’s Observations
The Tribunal found this practice of returning appeal papers instead of issuing a defect memo to be improper. It noted that even the Tribunal itself follows the procedure of issuing a defect memo, thereby allowing the appellant an opportunity to cure procedural defects.
The Bench observed that: Filing an appeal within limitation clearly reflects the intent of the party to contest the matter. Any defect noticed upon scrutiny should be addressed through correspondence or issuance of a defect memo and Returning appeal papers and later treating the re-filed appeal as time-barred is inconsistent with established appellate practice.
The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Ramesh Vasantbhai Bhojani v. Union of India, which distinguished between “filing” of an appeal and “entertaining” an appeal, clarifying that the requirement of pre-deposit pertains to entertaining the appeal, not to its filing.
It also referred to similar views taken in: West Asia Maritime Limited v. Commissioner of Central Tax, Visakhapatnam adn Conart Engineers Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara-I
Final Decision
Taking into account that the mandatory pre-deposit had ultimately been made, the Tribunal held that the appellant deserved an opportunity to be heard on merits.
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
Appearance
- For the Appellant: Abhay Y Desai, Advocate
- For the Respondent: Mihri G Rayka, Additional Commissioner (AR)
Coram
- Somesh Arora, Member (Judicial)
- Satendra Vikram Singh, Member (Technical)
Case Details
- Case Title: Shri Govind Guru University v. Commissioner of C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-II
- Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 10714 of 2020
- Final Order No.: 10111/2026
- Date of Hearing/Decision: 20.01.2026
