Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise Jammu vs. M/S Jsb Aluminium Samba

Facts

The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jammu, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by CESTAT Chandigarh. The appeal was delayed by 1369 days, and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant's counsel conceded that a similar issue had been raised in a previous appeal, CEA No. 10/2020, where the Court had dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation on similar grounds for delay condonation. Therefore, the present application was considered in light of the previous ruling.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jammu, was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1369 days. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel fairly submitted that a similar issue had arisen in CEA No. 10/2020, where the grounds for condonation of delay were similar, and the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed that appeal as barred by limitation. Applying the same reasoning, the Court found that the present application for condonation of delay was not acceptable. Consequently, the appeal and any connected applications were dismissed as being barred by limitation. The ratio decidendi is that significant delays in filing appeals, without sufficient grounds or in the face of established precedent dismissing similar applications, will result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jammu, is barred by limitation, considering a delay of 1369 days. 2. Whether the grounds urged for condonation of delay are sufficient to overcome the significant delay in filing the appeal. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jammu, sought condonation of delay, arguing that similar issues had arisen in a previous appeal (CEA No. 10/2020) and that the grounds for delay were similar. The petitioner implicitly relied on the possibility of the delay being condoned. Revenue/State's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the revenue/State in this specific matter, as the judgment focuses on the petitioner's submission and the prior precedent.