Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125260-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. - 20 of 2025 Appellant :- District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Cgst And Central Excise- Meerut-1 Counsel for Appellant :- Nilay Patel,Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. In the present appeal, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made the following substantial question of law: "Whether the order of the Tribunal confirming the order in appeal dated 07.08.2023 and rejecting the appeal of the appellant on limitation without considering that the delay in filing the first appeal did not occur on account of the fault of the appellant is sustainable in law?" 3. The issue herein is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Saurabh Kumar Agarwal v. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:182980-DB, wherein this Court has held as under: "3. It is to be noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein, as the same had been filed after an inordinate delay of about three years. As held in the judgement of the Supreme court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), the appeal is required to be filed within the period as provided under the Act and there is no application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to such appeals. In light of the same, the Supreme Court has held that no power exists with the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal to condone the said delay. 4. Since the present appeal is with regard to the limitation period, we are of the view that we cannot intervene in the matter in any manner. The explanation of the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was suffering from Tuberculosis though may give rise to a right in equity, but the same cannot percolate to right under the statute. 5. In any event, we are of the view that we are bound by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed." 4. The judgment passed in Saurabh Kumar Agarwal (supra) was challenged in review bearing Civil Misc. Review Application No.561 of 2024. The said review application was dismissed by this Court on December 19, 2024. The appellant therein had gone before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has also not interfered with the said judgment and the review order in its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 5. In light of the same, the substantial question of law quoted above is answered against the appellant and in favour of the department. 6. The appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Kuldeep (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad