Facts of the Case

SpiceJet Limited and its officials challenged an Order-in-Original dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, an Order-in-Appeal dated 27.03.2024 dismissing their appeal as time-barred, and a subsequent Final Order dated 20.01.2025 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The petitioners had filed their appeal before the appellate authority on 03.10.2023, after the Order-in-Original was communicated on 20.03.2023 — beyond the maximum permissible period of 60 days plus a further condonable 30 days under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellate authority accordingly declined to condone the delay and rejected the appeal for want of jurisdiction to do so; CESTAT upheld this rejection.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the appellate authorities correctly held that they had no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing the customs appeal beyond the statutory period of 60 days plus 30 days under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
  2. Whether, notwithstanding this statutory bar, the High Court could exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to prevent the petitioners from being denied an opportunity to have their case heard on merits.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Denial of the right of appeal on a technical ground of delay, without any adjudication on the substantive issues, amounted to a failure of substantive justice.
  • Procedural laws relating to limitation are meant to advance justice, not defeat substantive rights, and courts should not mechanically apply limitation to shut out a genuine grievance.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in ONGC Ltd. and the judgment in Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Health Care, it was argued that where a statute prescribes a specific limitation period with a limited power of condonation, authorities cannot go beyond it, and the High Court should not ordinarily entertain writ petitions to circumvent such statutory timelines.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court agreed that the appellate authorities correctly applied the statutory limitation and could not have condoned the delay beyond the prescribed period under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
  • However, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court held that the delay, while beyond the statutory condonable period, did not indicate deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, and that denying an opportunity for merits adjudication would cause grave injustice.
  • The Court set aside the Order-in-Appeal and the consequential CESTAT final order, and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to the petitioners paying Rs. 25,000 to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
  • On such payment, the appeal was directed to be restored and adjudicated afresh on merits, after giving both parties reasonable opportunity.

Important Clarification

This is a Customs Act matter about limitation for filing appeals against a customs duty demand — it has no connection to GST law, and the respondents (Customs and Central Tax authorities) are named only because Customs and Central GST administration is often handled by the same field formations. The ruling on delay-condonation principles, while significant for customs litigants, does not touch any GST provision.

Sections Involved

  • Customs Act, 1962 — Section 128 (appeals and limitation)
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction

Decision – In Favour of

Decided partly in favour of the petitioners (SpiceJet) — the writ petition was partly allowed; the delay in filing the customs appeal was condoned subject to a cost payment, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 27339 of 2025
  • Coram: Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao
  • Date of Order: 10 April 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.