Appeal Not Time-Barred: Uttarakhand HC Restores Case Citing COVID Extension and Weekend Rule

The High Court held that COVID-related limitation extensions applied uniformly, preventing unfair treatment. Considering the extended period and weekend expiry, the company’s appeal was deemed timely. Thus, the tribunal’s dismissal was quashed and the appeal restored for adjudication.

The Uttarakhand High Court has delivered its judgement on a key issue of whether the company’s appeal was filed within the allowed time under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The writ petition was filed by Sai Auto Industries against the Commissioner of CGST and others, challenging an order dated September 29, 2025, passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Previously, the company had challenged the earlier order dated December 28, 2022, passed by the CGST Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun, before the CESTAT. However, the appeal was dismissed because it was filed beyond the permitted deadline prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. According to the provisions of the said section, an appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of order receipt, with a possible extension of 30 days if justified. The tribunal held that the company had the option to seek condonation of delay; however, it did not take advantage of the same. Consequently, the appeal was rejected for being time-barred. However, the company claimed that the Supreme Court of India had extended limitation periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it was entitled to a 90-day period starting from March 01, 2022, making its appeal filed on May 30, 2022, valid.

The court held, “the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said paragraph clearly states that the limitation would be 90 days from 01.03.2022. Although it speaks of the cases where limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 but if the submission is accepted, then in such cases, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the Statute, the same would get extended for 90 days from 01.03.2022 whereas in other cases where limitation did not expire during the said period, the limitation would continue to be as prescribed in the Statute, and thus an artificial distinction would come into existence between two categories of cases which was never intended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

When the company approached the Uttarakhand High Court, it noted that applying different limitation rules to similar cases would create an unfair difference, which was not the intention of the Supreme Court’s order. The court also discovered that the last days of the limitation period fell on a Sunday; therefore, the appeal filed on May 30, 2022, cannot be said to have been filed beyond the limitation, which further supported the validity of the filing date. In conclusion, the court quashed the impugned CESTAT’s order and restored the company’s appeal.