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

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal against an order dated March 7, 2018, passed by the CESTAT, Chandigarh. The appeal was significantly delayed by 1492 days. The appellant attributed this delay to a decision to file the appeal after the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492. However, the Court noted that a similar explanation had been rejected by the same Court in a previous case, CEA No. 10/2020, which was dismissed for being barred by limitation. The appellant's counsel conceded that the present case was identical to the one in CEA No. 10/2020 and lacked any new grounds for condoning the extensive delay.

Held

The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It noted that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay of 1492 days was identical to the one previously rejected by the Division Bench of the same Court in CEA No. 10/2020. The Court found no additional or fresh grounds to condone the substantial delay. Consequently, applying the principle established in the prior case, the Court dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was that the appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds for condoning the inordinate delay, and the precedent set by the Court in a similar situation was binding. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal and all connected applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu, against the CESTAT order dated March 7, 2018, is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1492 days? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant (Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Jammu): Argued that the decision to file the appeal was taken after the Supreme Court reiterated and settled the law in M/s Unicorn Industries Vs. U.O.I. and Ors (2020) 3 SCC 492, justifying the delay. Respondent (M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.): No arguments recorded for the respondent.