CESTAT Remands BHEL Excise Refund Appeal, Says Delay Could Not Be Rejected Without Examining Affidavit

May 4, 2026 : The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited’s (BHEL) excise refund appeal could not have been dismissed as time-barred merely on the basis of the date mentioned in the appeal proforma without examining the company’s explanation and supporting affidavit regarding delay in receipt of the order.

A Bench comprising Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Bhopal, for fresh adjudication after observing that the appellate authority failed to properly appreciate the circumstances in which the original adjudication order reached the concerned officer within the organisation.

The dispute arose after provisional assessments for the period 2011-12 to 2017-18 up to June 30, 2017 were finalised, following which BHEL filed refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Division-I, Bhopal, rejected the refund claims through an order dated August 30, 2024.

Aggrieved by the rejection, BHEL filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it had been filed beyond the statutory condonable period.

Before the Tribunal, BHEL submitted that while filing the appeal, the date of communication of the impugned order had inadvertently been mentioned as September 6, 2024 in the appeal proforma, although the order had actually reached the concerned officer only on September 9, 2024. The company argued that the delay occurred because the order had been wrongly addressed to “ADGM-Taxation”, a designation which did not exist within BHEL.

The appellant explained that the refund claims had in fact been signed by the Assistant Manager (Taxation), while the competent authority was the Additional General Manager (Finance). Since the officer who initially received the order had resigned, the document travelled through several departments and divisions before finally reaching the appropriate officer on September 9, 2024. An affidavit explaining these circumstances had also been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals).

BHEL further contended that the original refund rejection order itself had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice or opportunity of personal hearing had been granted before rejecting the claims.

The Revenue opposed the appeal, arguing that BHEL itself had disclosed September 6, 2024 as the date of receipt in the appeal memorandum and therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur to contend that statutory timelines under the Central Excise Act could not be relaxed beyond the prescribed limit.

After examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the impugned order had indeed been addressed to “BHEL (ADGM-Taxation)” despite no such designation existing in the organisation. The Bench observed that BHEL is a large manufacturing company with multiple divisions and administrative blocks, making it understandable that the order required internal routing before reaching the correct authority.

The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider BHEL’s submissions and affidavit explaining the delay and instead proceeded solely on the date mentioned in the appeal proforma, which the appellant claimed was a clerical error.

Holding that the facts had not been appreciated in the proper perspective, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration after taking into account the affidavit, submissions and surrounding circumstances. The appellate authority was also directed to decide the matter expeditiously within twelve weeks.

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Commissioner CGST & Central Excise
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 50104 of 2026
Coram: P. Anjani Kumar