Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. M/S Bbf Industries LTD Igc Samba J And K

Facts

The Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu, the appellant, 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 1488 days, and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in 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.', on similar grounds.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (J&K) Jammu was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1488 days. The Court noted that a similar issue had been dealt with by a Division Bench in CEA No. 10/2020, where the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition on similar grounds 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, emphasizing that allowing recovery of refunded amounts based on subsequent decisions would open a 'Pandora's box' and be against public policy, was found to be applicable to the present case. The Court concluded that the principles laid down in the Division Bench's order in CEA No. 10/2020 and upheld by the Supreme Court applied to the current application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation, considering the significant delay of 1488 days and the grounds for condonation presented. Contentions of the Appellant/Petitioner: The appellant sought condonation of delay, arguing that the delay was due to reasons stated in the application. They relied on the principle that finality of litigation is important, but also implicitly sought to have their appeal heard on merits despite the delay. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondent likely did not contest the delay or that the Court found the delay to be insurmountable based on precedent. The Court also considered the implications of previous judgments, including a Division Bench decision in CEA No. 10/2020 and a Supreme Court decision in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 18051/2023, which dealt with similar issues of delay and the finality of past decisions.