CESTAT: Delay Beyond 90 Days Under Customs Act Cannot Be Condoned, Appeals Dismissed

April 17, 2026 : The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reaffirmed that delay in filing an appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be condoned beyond the statutory outer limit of 90 days. The Tribunal held that once the prescribed period of 60 days and the additional condonable period of 30 days lapse, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The ruling came in Parekh Cranes and Machinery & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), where a Bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) dismissed two appeals as time-barred.

The dispute arose from an adjudication order dated May 16, 2024, which was admittedly served on the appellants on May 22, 2024. However, the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were filed only on August 22, 2024—beyond the combined period of 60 days and the additional 30 days allowed for condonation.

The appellants sought condonation of delay citing the absence of a partner who had travelled abroad during a substantial part of May and June 2024, followed by health issues. They also pointed to time spent in consulting professionals and finalising engagement with an advocate before filing the appeal.

After examining the application and supporting affidavit, the Tribunal found the explanation vague and unsupported by concrete details. It noted that specific dates were not clearly stated and that an incorrect impression had been created regarding the duration of the partner’s absence. The medical prescription relied upon did not even mention a date, further weakening the claim.

Importantly, the Tribunal observed that the firm had another partner who could have taken steps to file the appeal within the prescribed time. It held that there was nothing preventing the other partner from authorising the filing, and therefore the delay could not be justified.

Rejecting the argument that certain periods should be excluded while computing limitation, the Tribunal held that such a plea was not supported by pleadings or evidence on record. It also dismissed the contention regarding improper service, noting that the order had been duly served through speed post and was received in the appellant’s office.

The Bench emphasised that the statutory scheme under Section 128(1) is explicit: an appeal must be filed within 60 days, extendable by only 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. Beyond this, the appellate authority has no power to condone delay. It reiterated that permitting further condonation would defeat the legislative intent.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Tribunal reiterated that where a statute prescribes a specific condonable period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. Any attempt to extend the limitation beyond the prescribed period would render the provision ineffective.

The Tribunal also distinguished Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd., noting that the said case involved improper service of the order, whereas in the present case service was validly effected and acknowledged.

Finding no error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as not maintainable, reinforcing the strict application of statutory timelines under the Customs Act.