Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise J And K Jammu vs. Intex Industries Sidco Industrial Complex Bari Brahmana Jammu J And K

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 delayed by 1488 days. The appellant's counsel submitted 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 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 matter.

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise (J&K) Jammu as barred by limitation. The Court noted that the appeal was delayed by 1488 days. The Court referred to its own previous order in CEA No. 10/2020, where a similar appeal with a delay was dismissed. Crucially, the Court highlighted the Supreme Court's dismissal of 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. The Supreme Court's reasoning, as quoted, emphasized that decisions based on the Supreme Court's judgment in SRD Nutrients (P) Limited, which had attained finality, should not be disturbed by subsequent overruling decisions like M/s Unicorn Industries, to avoid opening a 'pandora's box' and to ensure finality of litigation, which is against public policy. The High Court found this reasoning equally applicable to the present appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed along with connected applications due to the delay.

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 1488 days. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise): The appellant sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar issues had arisen in previous cases. They relied on the fact that the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP concerning a similar matter, implying a favorable outcome for their position. Respondent (Intex Industries): The respondent did not explicitly present arguments on the merits of the case in the provided text. However, the High Court's decision implies that the respondent's position, as upheld by previous court orders, was considered.