Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Cadila Pharmaceuticals LTD Igc Samba

Facts

The Commissioner 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 filed with a delay of 1359 days, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted. The appellant's counsel acknowledged that a similar issue had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) where the High Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had also 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 Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu is barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in CEA No. 10/2020, where the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Crucially, the Supreme Court had also 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 factual matrix and legal contention. The Supreme Court's reasoning, as reproduced in the judgment, emphasized that allowing recovery of refunded amounts based on subsequent decisions, when past decisions had attained finality, would open a 'pandora's box' and be against public policy. Therefore, in view of the High Court's prior order in CEA No. 10/2020 and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP, the present appeal was dismissed along with connected applications as being barred by limitation. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu is barred by limitation, considering the delay of 1359 days and the submissions made by the appellant. The appellant argued that the appeal should be considered on merits, relying on the principle that similar issues have been dealt with by higher courts. They pointed to the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 18051/2023 as indicative of the Supreme Court's view on the matter. The appellant also referred to the High Court's previous dismissal of CEA No. 10/2020 on similar grounds of limitation. The respondent (M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment. The Court's decision was based on the appellant's submissions and the cited precedents.