The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition, upholding CESTAT’s order, which had rejected the petitioner’s application seeking restoration of its excise appeal after a delay of seven years. The Court held that prolonged inaction and negligence in pursuing remedies cannot be condoned merely on the ground of financial hardship.
The dispute arose from a show-cause notice dated December 10, 2014, called upon the petitioner to pay excise duty of Rs. 1,12,23,672/- on sugar and molasses for the period from May 2013 to August 2014, along with a penalty. The demand was confirmed by an Order-in-Original dated July 23, 2015. The petitioner filed an appeal before the CESTAT with a delay of 98 days, citing the closure of the factory due to the financial crisis. By order dated September 19, 2017, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal because the petitioner failed to file an affidavit explaining the delay, despite being granted an opportunity to do so.
Several years later, in October 2024, the petitioner approached the CESTAT again by filing a miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the earlier delay condonation application, contending that the cooperative sugar mill had remained closed due to financial difficulties and could not track the proceedings. The CESTAT rejected the application by order dated June 5, 2025, noting that no convincing explanation was offered for the seven-year delay.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the petitioner was represented by an advocate in all proceedings and yet failed to pursue the appeal in time. The Bench noted the delay in filing the appeal of 98 days, with no explanation of the delay, failed to remain present in the proceedings, and lastly filling restoration application after a lapse of seven years.
The Court distinguished the petitioner’s reliance on another CESTAT order condoning a long delay, noting that in that case, the order had not been served, and substantial deposits had been made. Referring to Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India [(2023) 10 SCC 531], the High Court reiterated that courts must carefully distinguish between a genuine explanation and a mere excuse while considering delay condonation. Holding that financial difficulty alone cannot justify prolonged inaction, the Court found no perversity in the CESTAT’s order.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the impugned order.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – AdvocateDhaval Shah,
For the Respondents – AdvocateHardika Vyas
