Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Uflex LTD Unit Ii Sidco Undustrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1484 days, and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel conceded that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020), which was dismissed by the High Court as barred by limitation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 18051/2023, titled 'Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) versus M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.', on similar grounds.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu was barred by limitation. This decision was based on the significant delay of 1484 days in filing the appeal. The Court noted that a similar appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) with comparable grounds for condonation of delay had been dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court. Crucially, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 18051/2023 in the case of 'Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) versus M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.', which dealt with a similar issue and the principle of finality of litigation. The Supreme Court's reasoning, emphasizing that allowing recovery of refunded amounts based on subsequent overruling decisions would open a 'pandora's box' and be against public policy, was adopted by the High Court. Therefore, the High Court found that the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's order applied to the present case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1484 days. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant relied on the submissions made at the bar, acknowledging the dismissal of a similar appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) and the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP in a related matter. Respondent (Uflex Ltd.): No specific arguments are recorded for the respondent in the provided text. However, the judgment's outcome implies the respondent's position was upheld.