Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Hitachi Home And Life Solutions INDIA LTD Karan Nagar Mehsana Gujrat

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh against a final order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and was delayed by 1511 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay. The appellant's counsel submitted that a similar issue had arisen in another appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the High Court dismissed the appeal 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.', which dealt with a similar matter.

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, along with connected applications, as being barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appeal was delayed by 1511 days. The Court referred to its own previous decision in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Crucially, the Court also highlighted the Supreme Court's dismissal of Special Leave Petition (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.'. The Supreme Court's reasoning, as quoted in the judgment, emphasized that decisions that have attained finality, even if based on a subsequently overruled judgment (like SRD Nutrients), should not be reopened to avoid creating a 'pandora's box' and to uphold public policy against endless litigation. The High Court found this reasoning directly applicable 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 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the CESTAT order dated March 6, 2018, is barred by limitation, given a delay of 1511 days. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar issues had arisen in previous cases. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 18051/2023 in 'Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) versus M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.' as indicative of the court's stance on such matters. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but the court's decision implies that the respondent likely supported the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation, aligning with the precedent set by the High Court in CEA No. 10/2020 and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP.