Mapaex Consumer Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India

[Cites 13, Cited by 0] Madhya Pradesh High Court Mapaex Consumer Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 18 August, 2026 Author: Vivek Rusia Bench: Vivek Rusia NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 1 WP-19911-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 19911 of 2026 MAPAEX CONSUMER HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Shuvendra Pandey - Advocate and Shri Kumar Visalaksh - Advocate (through Shri Gajendra Singh Thakur - Advocate appearing on behalf of Additional Solic India. Reserved on: 05.8.2026 Pronounced on: 18.08.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER Per: Vivek Rusia, Acting Chief Justice This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of Indi impugned order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax A "Tribunal") under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 upholding the rejection of th respondent No.2 against the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2023 passed by the respo adjudication on merits and/or jurisdictional issues whatsoever. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of import and export NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 2 WP-19911-2026 petitioner imported certain goods duty-free under Advance Authorizations/Advance Lice by availing the benefit of Notification No.18/2015-Cus. dated 01.04.2015. At the tim requisite bond undertaking to fulfil the prescribed export obligation and to furnish proof 3. According to the Department, the petitioner failed to produce proof of fulfi stipulated period and thereby violated the conditions of Notification No.18/2015-Cus issued against the petitioner proposing recovery of customs duty amounting to Rs.27 under Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposition of penalty under Section Authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner (Customs), ICD, Mandideep, No.14/AA/ICD/MDP/2022-23 dated 28.03.2023, confirmed the proposed demand of cu and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the respondents that the Order-in-Original was served upon th however, disputes the validity and effectiveness of such service. According to the pet earlier situated at E-7, HIG-500, Arera Colony, Bhopal, it had shifted its operation 17.08.2022. The earlier premises were undergoing re-development and were not being us asserts that the Order-in-Original was delivered at the old premises and, consequently, management. The petitioner further asserts that it remained unaware of the Order-in-Ori upon receipt of departmental recovery notices in December, 2023. 5. By then, according to the petitioner, both the statutory period of sixty day thirty days prescribed under Section 128 of the Customs Act had already expired. Upon order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 05.03 condonation of delay. The petitioner explained that the delay had occurred solely on Original due to shifting of its office premises and that the delay was bonafide and beyond 6. The petitioner also contended on merits that the Export Obligation Discha issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), thereby establishing fulfilment NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 3 WP-19911-2026 demand unsustainable. A personal hearing was granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) authorized representatives of the petitioner reiterated that the EODC had been issued by the Customs Authorities. They further reiterated the grounds urged in the application fo the appeal be heard on merits. 7. By Order-in-Appeal No.IND-EXCUS-000-APP-102-2024-25 dated 21.10.202 the appeal as barred by limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Order-i petitioner on 04.04.2023 that the appeal ought to have been filed within sixty day condonable period of thirty days, and that the appeal filed on 05.03.2024 was beyon Section 128 of the Customs Act. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Excise, Jamshedpur, [(2008) 221 ELT 163 (SC)] , it was held that the Comm condone delay beyond the statutory period. 8. Consequently, the merits of the appeal were not examined. Aggrieved by the further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CE 24.11.2025, affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the app (Appeals) lacked statutory jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period prescrib Challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribuna petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter alia the statutory appeal for adjudication on merits, and, in the alternative, a declaration that Act, to the extent it prescribes an absolute outer limit for condonation of delay, is uncons SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner (Appea erroneous assumption that the Order-in-Original was validly communicated on 04.04 dispatched to the petitioner's old office premises, which had ceased to function owing to valid communication in the eye of law. In the absence of valid communication, it was NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 4 WP-19911-2026 Section 128 of the Customs Act never commenced to run. 10. It was further submitted that the petitioner acquired actual knowledge of t departmental recovery notices in December, 2023. By that stage, the statutory period of period of thirty days had already expired, making it impossible for the petitioner to fil law. The delay, therefore, was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence on the entirely by circumstances beyond its control. 11. Learned counsel contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to app the appeal within the prescribed period was directly attributable to the non-commun submitted that the statutory right of appeal could not be defeated merely because the pe order within the limitation period. 12. On merits, it was submitted that the Department's demand itself is unsusta Certificate (EODC) had already been issued by the Director General of Foreign T obligation. The issuance of the EODC conclusively established compliance with the Scheme and Notification No.18/2015-Cus. Consequently, no customs duty, interest or pe 13. It was argued that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal decline case solely on the ground of limitation, thereby depriving the petitioner of its valuable according to the petitioner, has resulted in grave prejudice since the legality of the d Appellate Authority. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court, in exercise of i 226 of the Constitution, possesses ample power to condone the delay, where sufficient interfere would result in manifest injustice. 14. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in Spice Jet Limited Vs. The Additio Online TS 2984, Alfa Shopping Vs. Assistant Commissioner ; 2025 SCC Online Mad Mahindra Bank Ltd.; CRP No.4187 of 2024 dated 23.10.2024 (Madras High Court), Commissioner (ST)-III; 2023 SCC Online AP 2009, Sri Sasthaa Constructions Vs. AC NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 5 WP-19911-2026 Molana Construction Company Vs. CGST Department ; 2024 SCC Online TS 2984. Wit the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 128 of the Customs Act. It was submi absolute outer limit of thirty days for condonation of delay irrespective of the existence o 15. According to the petitioner, the provision creates an irrational distinction betwe which, they acquire knowledge of an adverse order, a circumstance often beyond their c Constitution. It was also contended that while Sections 129A(5) and 130(2A) of the Cu sufficient cause without prescribing any rigid outer limit, and Section 128 alone imposes under the Income Tax Act also do not prescribe such an absolute limitation. 16. The impugned proviso is therefore, stated to be manifestly arbitrary, dispropo (g) and 265 of the Constitution. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passe Tribunal and submitted that both the Authorities have correctly interpreted and applied Act. It was submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 28.03.2023 was duly commun admitted by the petitioner itself in Form CA-1 accompanying the appeal before the Com once the order had been served at the address available in the departmental records, the satisfied and limitation commenced from the said date. 18. Learned counsel submitted that the explanation advanced by the petitioner rega invalidate an otherwise valid service. The responsibility to ensure that official correspon to intimate any change of address to the Department lies upon the assessee. The conseq cannot be shifted upon the Department. It was further submitted that Section 128 of the governing limitation for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The statute days and authorizes condonation of delay only up to a further period of thirty days upon aggregate period of ninety days, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks jurisdiction to enterta NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 6 WP-19911-2026 19. The respondents contended that the petitioner's appeal was filed on communication of the Order-in-Original and approximately 277 days beyond the presc the statutory limit, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly declined to entertain th submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no inherent or equitable power to co prescribed by Parliament. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the judgment of the (Supra), wherein it has been held that where the legislature prescribes an outer limi Authority cannot exercise any discretion beyond such period. 20. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal correctly affirmed the or Tribunal could not confer jurisdiction upon the Appellate Authority, where none existe applied the settled legal position and committed no error warranting interference under A argued that once the appeal itself was held to be barred by limitation, neither the Com required to examine the merits of the demand. Accordingly, the contention regarding iss Certificate (EODC) or fulfillment of export obligation was rightly not adjudicated. Last challenge to the proviso to Section 128 is devoid of merit. Prescription of limitation and of legislative policy intended to ensure certainty and finality in fiscal adjudication. The and cannot be regarded as arbitrary or discriminatory. The respondents, therefore, prayed Appreciation and conclusions 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner passed in Customs Appeal No.50341/2025 by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appella whereby the appeal has been dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Commissio a regular Central Excise Appeal lies to the High Court under section 35-G of the Cen question of law. It appears that since the time to file the regular appeal has expired, the way of filing the instant writ petition. In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the fo "1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal and Respondent No. 2 were j Petitioner's appeals as time-barred without examining the merits, despit explanation for delay and absence of any mala fides or dilatory conduct. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 7 WP-19911-2026 2. Whether, after issuance of the EODC by DGFT certifying com obligation under the Advance Authorisation, the very basis of the custom 3. Whether customs authorities can, in the face of such EODC and export obligation, lawfully deny exemption and sustain demand of duty purely technical view of limitation and procedural compliance. 4. Whether Impugned Proviso to Section Customs Act, 1962 is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, disproportiona 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and therefore the extent it imposes an absolute bar on condonation of delay beyond of 3 22. Aforesaid issues are liable to be raised as questions of law in the regular Cen legal grounds on merit are also liable to be taken in the said regular Central Excise A Excise Act. Since the petitioner has availed the remedy of First Appeal before the C Second Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, it cannot be permitted to raise all the g petition. In the case of CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd . reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to short-circuit statutory remedies provid questions on merit and interpretation of tax liability are properly determinable by the stat 23. In the case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. reported in (2012) 11 Act provides a complete, self-contained code with an exhaustive hierarchy of remedie Tribunal (CESTAT) is appealable before the High Court under Section 35G (or the Sup Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226, as the statutory remedy i decide questions of law. In the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass has been held that when a statutory forum is provided by an Act for redressal of grievan not be entertained merely because it is open to the High Court to do so. In fiscal statute the High Court must show strict self-restraint and relegate the assessee to the prescribed 24. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the Appeal. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:63896 8 WP-19911-2026 (PRADEEP MITTAL) (VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RM