M/S Brahmaputra Cracker And Polymer Limited vs. Commissioner Of CGST And Excise, Dibrugarh

Held

The Court decided to condone the delay of 44 days in filing the cross-objection. The Court considered that both the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Excise and the cross-objection filed by the applicant were against the same Final Order No. 75765/2024 dated 25.04.2024 passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The Court found that the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay, as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of their application, constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The Court directed the Registry to register the connected cross-objection and list it for further proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

M/s Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited (the applicant) filed an application seeking condonation of a 44-day delay in filing a cross-objection. This cross-objection pertains to Final Order No. 75765/2024 dated 25.04.2024, passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata, in Service Tax Appeal No. 76059/2023. The applicant's cross-objection is against the Commissioner of CGST and Excise, Dibrugarh. The revenue (Commissioner of CGST and Excise) has also filed an appeal (C.Ex. Appeal No. 3/2026) against the same CESTAT order. The revenue argued that the delay should be rejected due to a lack of day-to-day explanation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 44 days in filing the cross-objection should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the applicant and the revenue's objection regarding the lack of a day-to-day explanation. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant sought condonation of delay, relying on the reasons stated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of their application, which they believed constituted sufficient cause. The applicant also highlighted that their cross-objection and the revenue's appeal were against the same CESTAT final order. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that the delay of 44 days should be rejected because the applicant had not provided a day-to-day explanation for the delay.